• GOVERNMENT OF INDIA j
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA |
CENTRAL I
ARCHAEOLOGICAL 1
LI BRAR Y
ACCESSION NO._ £& ..
CALL No — <»/?. • A 3 _
— _
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
Also by Millar Burrows
PALESTINE B OUB BUSINESS
OUTLINE Or BIBLICAL THEOLOCT
WHAT MEAN THESE STONES?
THE BASIS OF ISRAELITE MARRIAGE
BIBLE RELIGION
FOUNDERS OP CHEAT RELXCIONJ
The
DEAD SEA SCROLLS
by
MILLAR BURROWS
WJNXLEY PROFSWOH OF BIBLICAL THEOLOCT, YALE UNIVERSITY
njTJTJTrLfiruTTUTjajTj"^^
5il05_
E>»rr
With Translations
by the Author
5026
1956
SECKER &_ WARBURG
London
COPYRIGHT © 1955 BY lflLLA * Bt J* R 0' vs
FIRST BNOUSH EDITION 1956
PRINTED IN BNOLAND BY THE PITMAN PR*», BATH
fOR
MARTIN IBCKBR * WAR BUBO LIMITED
7 JOHN STREET, LONI>ON
W.O.I
CENTkal a.vLi i a LU LOGICAL
LIBRARY. NEW DELHI.
A"- ..-
CHARLES CUTLER TORREY
ra 1 ? K07 kw ntfa* ffwno n tnco
jj?nm jjrrn m non p*oo n two id
A "man of letters who has received the teaching of
the kingdom of heaven" and "is like a householder
who brings forth from his storehouse things new and
old." (Matthew 13:5a)
Contents
Preface
A Word to the Wise *v
PART ONE: DISCOVERIES AND DISCUSSIONS
i The First Discoveries 3
n Alarms and Excursions 29
m Later Discoveries 54
PART TWO: THE AGE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
iv The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 73
v The Evidence of Text and Language 102
PART THREE: THE DATES OF COMPOSITION
vi Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary: The
Kittim m
vn Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary: Drama¬
tis Personae M3
vm Identifications of Persons and Events 160
a Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 187
z Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 209
vii
Vlll
Contents
PART FOUR: THE COMMUNITY OF QUMRAN
xi Origin, History, and Organization
xn Beliefs
xm Identification
PART FIVE: THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
xiv Contributions to Textual Criticism, Historical Grammar,
and Paleography
xv Contributions to the Study of Judaism and Christianity
Summary
PART SIX: TRANSLATIONS
▲ The Damascus Document 349
d The Habakkuk Commentary 365
c The Manual of Discipline 371
d Selections from The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons
of Darkness 390
e Selections from the Thanksgiving Psalms 400
Bibliography
419
til HI
List of Illustrations
Plate i
Plate n
Plate m
Plate iv
Plate v
Plate vi
Plate vn
Plate vm
Plate ix
Plate x
Fic. 1
Fig. 2
(FoDotdng p . xvi )
Two of the Taamireh Bedouins.
Cave lQ, where the first discoveries were made.
Jars of the type in which the Dead Sea Scrolls were kept.
Col umn XI of the Habakkuk Commentary, showing the
Divine Name in the archaic script.
The excavation of Khirbet Qumran, seen from the hills,
with the Dead Sea in the background.
The cisterns of Khirbet Qumran.
The bronze scrolls found in cave 3Q.
Scholars working on the manuscript fragments at the
Palestine Museum.
Remains of writing tables and benches from the scrip¬
torium of Khirbet Qumran, set up in the Palestine Mu¬
seum at Jerusalem.
Map of the Qumran Caves Expedition, March 1952.
Map showing where the discoveries were made. 2
Evolution of the letter M: medial forms. 92
Evolution of the letter M: final forms. 93
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Plates 1, n, vn, and x (map of the Qumran Caves Expedition) are repro¬
duced by permission of Professor W. L. Reed; Plates xn, v, vi, vm, and ix
by the courtesy of the Palestine Archeological Museum of Jerusalem, Jordan;
Plate iv by the courtesy of the American Schools of Oriental Research.
ix
It would be unprofitable to apologize for the shortcomings of this
book, which reviewers and readers will detect all too easily. A word
of explanation is in order, however, concerning the omission of a
few features that might be expected in a book about ancient manu¬
scripts.
Scholars will note the absence of footnotes and an index. These
have been left out in order to keep the size and cost of the volume
within reasonable bounds, and to avoid encumbering it with mat¬
ter for which most readers would have no use. It is hoped that
students who wish to pursue the subject further will find some
compensation for these omissions in the rather extensive bibliogra¬
phy. To facilitate reference to the works of scholars whose views
are mentioned in the course of the book, the bibliography is
given in alphabetical order instead of being classified by
subjects.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the land assistance of many
friends, by which this book has quite literally been made possible.
The scholars whose industry, learning and insight have provided
most of its substance, especially those who have generously sent
me their books and articles, cannot even be named here. I can
only express my obligation and gratitude to them all.
The quotation of Matthew 13:52 in the dedication to Professor
Torrey is taken from his own translation, The Four Gospels, used
xi
xii Preface
by permission of Harper and Brothers. He is not, of course, respon¬
sible for my Aramaic.
For permission to use photographs of the excavation of Khirbet
Qumran and objects found there I am grateful to Mr. G. Lankester
Harding, Director of the Department of Antiquities of the Hash-
imite Kingdom of Jordan, to Father R. de Vaux, Director of the
French Dominican School of Archeology at Jerusalem, and to
Mr. Joseph Saad, Secretary of the Palestine Archeological Museum
at Jerusalem. Assistance in obtaining and selecting these photo¬
graphs was kindly given by Mr. and Mrs. Philip C. Hammond,
Jr.; Mr. Hammond also prepared the drawings for Figures 1 and
2. For photographs of the caves and the Taamireh Bedouins and
for the map of the Qumran Caves Expedition (published previ¬
ously in the Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
for October 1954; I am indebted to Professor William L. Reed,
Director of the American School of Oriental Research at Jerusalem
in 1951-52. Permission to use the photograph of a column of the
Habakkuk Commentary was graciously given by Mrs. G. R.
Walton, Business Manager of the American Schools of Oriental
Research.
Others have rendered very important assistance by reading
portions of my manuscript and making suggestions for its improve¬
ment. Professors William H. Brownlee and John C. Trever have
helped to revive and correct my memories of the events connected
with the first discovery of manuscripts and our connection with
these events. They have also cleared up some technical points
for me. My wife has very greatly helped me to clarify some of the
most abstruse parts of my exposition. Much of it still makes heavy
reading, for what is essentially complex cannot be made simple
without misrepresenting it; but it is much plainer now than it
would have been without her criticism and suggestions. I owe
much to the skill and patience of my secretary, Mrs. C. E.
Schweitzer. Miss Eudosia F. Adzima deserves credit also for her
faithful work as Mrs. Schweitzer’s substitute during the hot days
of summer.
Without the invitation of Mr. Robert O. Ballou of the Viking
Preface xiii
Press this book would not have been undertaken at all. For his con¬
siderate, helpful cooperation and encouragement throughout its
preparation I am indeed grateful.
Millar Burrows
Yale University
May 9, 3955
PREFACE TO THE BRITISH EDITION
Since this book was published in the United States the Aramaic
scroll which had been tentatively called the Lamech Scroll has
been unrolled in Israel and at least one of the copper scrolls from
Cave 3 has been opened at Manchester, England. At the time of
this writing neither text has been published; the nature of the
contents of the copper scroll has not been divulged, but accord¬
ing to press reports the Lamech Scroll has been found to be an
Aramaic midrash or edifying expansion of the book of Genesis.
The four complete columns, with portions of five others, which
have been found legible deal with chapters 12-15 of Genesis and
contain interesting embellishments of the biblical narrative.
Meanwhile further discoveries have been made among the frag¬
ments recovered in Jordan, and many valuable publications have
appeared. That any substantial modification in my conclusions
or tentative inferences will be required is not yet apparent, but
the study of the scrolls goes merrily on and will continue for some
time.
February 13,1956
M. B.
A Word to the Wise
This book is not intended for the scholar. I have tried to write
with a man’s pen, so that he who runs may read. Even so, I fear,
an attempt to read these chapters on the run will prove to be
quite an obstacle race. I could not level the hills and valleys and
make all the rough places plain without giving up my main pur¬
pose in writing, which was to give a fairly definite idea of what
the Dead Sea Scrolls are, why there has been so much excitement
over them, and how they are important.
I hope he who starts to read will not run away. In this kind of
race, after all, there is no rule against cutting across the course and
skipping the rugged places. If the reader chooses to turn at once
to the last chapter to see how the story comes out, there is nothing
to prevent him . It might be a good idea.
Pi.atk I. Two or the Taamirch Bedouins. Muhammed adh-Dhib, who discovered the
first cave in 1947, is the young man on the right
I’l-AlK. hi. Jars of (he tyjic in which ihc Dead Sea Scrolls were kept
'3
1A
'V
m
r
w
vu yvvnti *T3*nV ■nWAfi w^i >dh
mw 'wi itf tsawrt *•" *D*»n
■QllviyajiV* \MWiv3V wn
*ie>* yvpn pmnV'VWa
vyjj. vw yni"n 11113 itiw <)*ii
wVjivw van
‘jyVa&tjTliW yum *t)iivn*n ^
■nsrcar TJjinivii vr Tjm
Vim TUiNtyAiui^ iv j'T
•‘■$X4 w wVx.aWn
t , 1UM1X1 Vy
iliArtU'W pin **y iivyj
V> jtViv yw VdiV^tj
MHW 3 ( 1 W» 9 .y*\ HMiH
jv^vai <v ' 'w" ,M>^oiiV
1 X1
rrr
A
Ifl
A'
•v
V
Plate iv. Column XI of the Habakkuk Commentary, showing the Divine Name
in the archaic script
Plate vii. The bronze scrolla found in cave 3Q. Plate viii. Scholar* working
on the manuscript fragments at the Palestine Museum
-V?
V ~
l'l-ATR ix. Remains of writing tables and Iwnchrs from the scriptorium of Khirlx-t
Qumran, set up in the Palestine Museum at Jerusalem
PART ONE
DISCOVERIES AND DISCUSSIONS
I
The First Discoveries
1-TLrTJTJTJTJTnJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTjXn
If we had only known it when we went down to the shore of
the Dead Sea on October 25, 1947, we could have walked to the
cave where an extraordinary discovery of manuscripts had been
made some seven or eight months earlier. Conducting field trips
to study the archeology and historical geography of Palestine was
one of my duties as Director of the American School of Oriental
Research at Jerusalem that year. This particular excursion, how¬
ever, was not so much a scientific expedition as a pleasure trip and
pilgrimage combined. At Kallia, near the northwestern comer
of the Dead Sea, some of our party took a swim in the thick
brine before we proceeded to the traditional site of the baptism
of Jesus and then back to Jerusalem by way of Jericho. In the party
were two young scholars who will have a prominent part in this
narrative. Dr. John C. Trever and Dr. William H. Brownlee, who
were both students at our school that year on fellowships. At the
time of our excursion the manuscripts, which were later to become
famous, were already at Jerusalem in the possession of the Syrian
Monastery of St. Mark and of the Hebrew University, but we at
the American School of Oriental Research did not learn of their
existence for another four months.
Because these manuscripts were found in a cave near the Dead
Sea, they are commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls. Father de
Vaux of Jerusalem, whose name will appear often in our story,
protests that the scrolls did not come out of the Dead Sea. The
3
4 The Decui Sea Scroll s
name is convenient, however, and will be used here. A more exact
designation is the Wady Qumran Manuscripts, but this does not
cover the manuscript fragments found later at other places in the
region.
Exactly when and how the first cave and its contents were dis¬
covered can hardly be determined now, though the discoverer,
a fifteen-year-old boy of the Taamirah tribe of Bedouins, was
identified and questioned about two years later. His name was
Muhammad adh-Dhib (more exactly al-di ’h, i.e., “the wolf, pro¬
nounced adh-dheeb, the dh representing the sound of a soft th
in English, as in the). It was probably in February or March 1947
that he found the scrolls. The Syrian Orthodox archbishop who
bought some of them says that he first heard of them in the month
of Nisan, which corresponds roughly to our month of April; and
Father van der Ploeg of Nijmegen saw them at the Syrian Ortho¬
dox monastery late in July. According to one form of the story,
Muhammad adh-Dhib was herding goats or looking for a lost
sheep when he found the cave; according to another, he and one
or two companions were taking goods, perhaps smuggled across
the Jordan, to Bethlehem. One story has it that they took refuge
from a thunderstorm in the cave. Another story is that a runaway
goat jumped into the cave, Muhammad adh-Dhib threw a stone
after it, and the sound of breaking pottery aroused his curiosity,
whereupon he called another lad, and the two crawled into the
cave and so found the manuscripts.
The cave is in a cliff about five miles south of the place where
we went swimming at the northwest comer of the Dead Sea, and
about a mile and a quarter back from the shore, in the foothills
of the Judean plateau. It is within a mile of an old min named
Khirbet Qumran. The name Qumran, as pronounced by the Bed¬
ouins, sounds a little like Gomorrah, and some of the early Euro¬
pean explorers of Palestine thought that Khirbet Qumran might
be the site of that ill-fated city. That is quite impossible. Gomorrah
was not in this vicinity at all. Another association with the Old
Testament is more pertinent The track from the Jordan Valley
to Bethlehem passes near this spot. When Elimelech and his fam-
The First Discoveries 5
ily went from Bethlehem to Moab, and when Naomi and Ruth went
back to Bethlehem, they must have followed approximately this
same route.
Whenever and however the discovery came about, the cave,
when first entered, contained several jars, most of them broken,
with pieces of many others. Protruding from the broken jars were
scrolls of leather wrapped in linen cloth. They were very brittle
and rather badly decomposed, especially at the ends, but it was
possible to see that they were inscribed in a strange writing. Mu¬
hammad Adh-Dhib and his friends, the story goes, took these scrolls
to a Muslim sheikh at their market town, Bethlehem. Seeing that
the script was not in Arabic and supposing that it was Syriac, the
sheikh sent them to a merchant who was a member of the Syrian
Orthodox (Jacobite) community at Bethlehem, Khalil Eskander,
who informed another merchant belonging to their church at
Jerusalem, George Isaiah; and he in turn informed their Metro¬
politan-Archbishop, Athanasius Yeshue Samuel. In the meantime,
if the late Professor Sukenik of the Hebrew University at Jeru¬
salem was correctly informed, the great manuscript of the book
of Isaiah, the largest and oldest of all the scrolls, had been offered
to a Muslim antiquities dealer at Bethlehem for twenty pounds, but
he, not believing that it was ancient, had refused to pay that much
for it.
In the heart of the Old City of Jerusalem, just south of what the
British and Americans call David Street, there is an interesting
little monastery with a fine library of old Syriac manuscripts. This
is the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark. There is a tradi¬
tion that it stands on the site of the house of Mark’s mother, where
the disciples were gathered for prayer when Peter came to them
after his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:12-17).
A few years ago a Syriac inscription recording this tradition was
found in the monastery. Here Khalil Eskander and George Isaiah
brought one of the scrolls and showed it to Archbishop Samuel.
The archbishop recognized that the writing was not Syriac but
Hebrew. After breaking off a little piece and burning it, he per¬
ceived by the odor that the material was leather or parchment.
0 The Dead Sea Scrolls
He told the merchants that he would buy the scrolls. Several weeks
went by, however, before they could again get in touch with the
Bedouins, who came to Bethlehem only for the weekly market on
Saturday. It was not until the first Saturday of the month of
Tammuz, which corresponds to July, that the Metropolitan re¬
ceived a telephone call from Khalil Eskander, the merchant
in Bethlehem, saying that three Bedouins were there with the
scrolls.
Even then the archbishop did not see the Bedouins. Instead of
coming with them, Eskander apparently sent them to George
Isaiah, the Jerusalem merchant. He took them to the monastery but
was refused admission, because the priest who met them at the
door thought that their dirty, dilapidated manuscripts were of no
interest. When the archbishop learned what had happened he
telephoned in considerable perturbation to Eskander, who said
that two of the Bedouins had returned and consented to leave their
scrolls with him, but the third had decided to look elsewhere for
a buyer and had taken his share of the scrolls to the Muslim sheikh
at Bethlehem. It was presumably this portion that Professor
Sukenik acquired in November for the Hebrew University.
Klialil Eskander told Archbishop Samuel further that when
George Isaiah and the Bedouins were sent away from the monas¬
tery they proceeded to the square just inside the Jaffa Gate.
Here they encountered a Jewish merchant who offered to buy the
scrolls for a good price and asked the Bedouins to come to his
office for the money. George Isaiah, however, persuaded them to
refuse this offer.
Two weeks later the two Bedouins who had left their scrolls with
Eskander at Bethlehem came back to his shop, and both he and
George Isaiah went with them to St. Mark’s Monastery. This time
they succeeded in seeing the archbishop, and he bought the manu¬
scripts still in their possession—five scrolls. Two of the five scrolls
turned out to be successive portions of one manuscript, which had
come apart This was what I named later the “Manual of Disci¬
pline.” The other three scrolls were the great manuscript of Isaiah
already mentioned, a commentary on the book of Habakkuk, and
The First Discoveries 7
a badly decomposed Aramaic scroll which at this writing has still
not been unrolled. For some time we called this simply "the
fourth scroll” (counting the two parts of the Manual of Discipline
as one). After our return to America, Dr. Trever detached one
column, and on the basis of its text identified the document tenta¬
tively as the lost book of Lamech; from then on we called it the
Lamech Scroll
At the suggestion of the archbishop, George Isaiah persuaded
the Bedouins to take him to the cave, where he saw one whole
jar and fragments of others, a mysterious piece of wood lying on
a stone, and many fragments of manuscripts, as well as bits of cloth
in which the scrolls had been wrapped. In August the archbishop
sent one of his priests. Father Yusef, to examine the cave again.
The idea of removing the whole jar still in the cave was con¬
sidered but abandoned, because the jar was too heavy to carry
in the intense summer heat of that region, more than a thousand
feet below sea level.
During the course of the summer Archbishop Samuel consulted
several scholars and showed his scrolls to a number of visitors at
the monastery, hoping to gain accurate information concerning
the contents, age, and value of the manuscripts. The first person
consulted seems to have been a member of the Syrian Orthodox
Church, the late Stephan Hannah Stephan, a well-known Oriental¬
ist, who was then working with the Department of Antiquities of
Palestine. He confidently pronounced the scrolls worthless. Since
his special competence was in the field of Arab history rather than
in Hebrew archeology or paleography, his judgment in this case
can only be attributed to general skepticism.
Archbishop Samuel also mentioned the scrolls to one of the
scholars of die French Dominican School of Archeology, Father
A. S. Marmadji, another Arabist. It happened that an eminent
biblical scholar from Holland, Father J. P. M. van der Ploeg, was
then staying at the Dominican Monastery of St. Stephen, with
which the School of Archeology is connected. Father Marmadji
therefore brought him to see the scrolls and the other manuscripts
at the Syrian monastery. Father van der Ploeg at once identified
8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the largest scroll as the book of Isaiah, being perhaps the first to
make this identification.
Early in September, Archbishop Samuel took his scrolls to Syria
and showed them to the Patriarch of his church at Homs. He tried
also to consult the professor of Hebrew at the American Uni¬
versity of Beirut, but found that he had not yet returned from his
vacation. After returning to Jerusalem, the archbishop tried again
to get information from Stephan Hannah Stephan, who at his
request brought him some books about the Hebrew alphabet,
but these did not give him much help. Still skeptical, Stephan
offered to bring a Jewish scholar of his acquaintance, who, he said,
was a specialist in such matters. Apparently this was Toviah
Wechsler, who later took a prominent part in the public con¬
troversy concerning the scrolls.
Wechsler agreed with Stephan that the scrolls were not ancient.
Archbishop Samuel quotes him as pointing to a table and saying,
“If that table were a box and you filled it full of pound notes, you
couldn’t even then measure the value of these scrolls if they are
two thousand years old as you say!” Later Wechsler decided that
he had been misled by some marginal corrections in one of the
manuscripts, which were written in ink still so black that he
thought it could not be ancient.
Early in October, Archbishop Samuel showed his scrolls to Dr.
Maurice Brown, a Jewish physician who had called at the monas¬
tery in connection with the use of a building owned by the Syrian
Orthodox community. Dr. Brown informed President Judah L.
Magnes of the Hebrew University, at whose request two men
were sent to the monastery from the university library. After see¬
ing the manuscripts, however, they suggested that someone from
the university more competent than they were should be invited
to examine die scrolls. Meanwhile Dr. Brown spoke to a Jewish
dealer in antiquities named Sassun, who came and looked at the
scrolls and suggested that pieces of them be sent to antiquities
dealers in Europe and America, but this the Metropolitan was
unwilling to do.
The late Dr. E. L. Sukenik, Professor of Archeology at the He-
The First Discoveries 9
brew University, had been in America while all this was going on
and did not hear of the manuscripts immediately when he re¬
turned to Palestine. On November 25 he was shown a fragment of
a scroll by an antiquities dealer, who told him about the discovery
of the cave and asked whether he would like to buy the scrolls.
Although he naturally suspected forgery, Sukenik answered in the
affirmative. Four days later he met the dealer again and bought
from him some bundles of leather, together with two pottery jars
in which the Bedouins claimed to have found the manuscripts.
On the very day that this purchase took place the General As¬
sembly of the United Nations passed the fateful resolution recom¬
mending the partition of Palestine. Welcomed by the Jews but
bitterly resented by the Arabs, this led to a rapid deterioration in
the relations between Jews and Arabs, so that peaceful com¬
munication between them soon became impossible. Before this
point was reached, however, Sukenik managed to bring his two
jars from Bethlehem to the Jewish part of Jerusalem and to buy
a few more portions of manuscripts. In this he was encouraged and
assisted by President Magnes, who provided money for the
purpose.
Up to this time Sukenik had not been informed of the scrolls
acquired by Archbishop Samuel. Early in December he learned
about them from one of the men in the university library who had
visited the monastery during the summer. Rightly supposing that
these manuscripts probably belonged to the same collection as
those he had purchased, Sukenik endeavored to visit the monas¬
tery, but found that this was no longer possible. There the matter
rested until the latter half of January, when he received a letter
from a member of the Syrian Orthodox Church named Anton
Kiraz, in whose property south of Jerusalem he had previously
excavated an ancient tomb. Kiraz wrote that he had some old
manuscripts which he would like to show to Sukenik.
Since by this time there was no going back and forth between
the Arab and Jewish quarters, the meeting took place at the YMCA,
located in what was then Military Zone B, to which passes could
be secured for entry from other parts of the city. On seeing the
io The Dead Sea Scrolls
scrolls, Sukenik recognized at once that they and the portions of
manuscripts in his possession were indeed parts of the same col¬
lection. Kiraz admitted that they had been found in a cave near
the Dead Sea, and said he had been to the cave. He offered to sell
the scrolls to the Hebrew University and proposed a conference
with the archbishop to discuss terms. Archbishop Samuel, how¬
ever, says that all this was done without his consent or knowledge.
Kiraz allowed Sukenik to borrow three scrolls for two days,
and Sukenik took this opportunity to copy several columns, which
he later published, from the Isaiah manuscript. On February
8, according to his account, he returned the scrolls to Kiraz and
was shown two others, one or both of which belonged to the
Manual of Discipline. It was agreed that there should be another
meeting, and that President Magnes and Archbishop Samuel
should be present, in order that negotiations for the purchase of
the scrolls might be concluded. This meeting never took place.
Meanwhile Archbishop Samuel was ma kin g his own arrange¬
ments. One of the monks at St. Mark's Monastery, the late Butrus
Sowmy, suggested that a trustworthy judgment concerning the
scrolls might be obtained from the American School of Oriental
Research. To this end he telephoned on February 17 to Bishop
Stewart at the Collegiate Church of St George and asked for the
name of some person at the American School whom he might
consult I was absent from Jerusalem at the time, having left on
the preceding Sunday for a visit to Iraq. It happened, however,
that one of my students, Dr. W i l l i am H. Brownlee, who was
taking Arabic lessons at the Newman School of Missions, had
found it necessary to obtain from a resident clergyman a state¬
ment certifying that he was a Christian, so that the Arab guards
at the roadblocks would allow him to pass back and forth between
our school and the Newman School of Missions. He had obtained
this certificate from Bishop Stewart, who therefore thought of
him at once and gave Sowmy his name, mentioning the fact that
I had just left for Baghdad.
Accordingly on Wednesday, February 18,1948, Butrus Sowmy
telephoned to the American School of Oriental Research and
11
The First Discoveries
asked for Brownlee. Shortly before the call came Brownlee had
gone out to buy some wrapping paper for shipping his personal
effects to America. The servant who answered the telephone told
Sowmy, therefore, that Dr. Brownlee was not in the building, and
that I was out of the city, but that Dr. John C. Trever was the
Acting Director of the school in my absence. Trever was therefore
called to the telephone and invited Sowmy to bring the manu¬
scripts to the school the next day.
At two-thirty Thursday afternoon, as agreed, Butrus Sowmy and
his brother Ibrahim came to the school with the scrolls. This
time Brownlee had gone to the post office and had again been
delayed in passing through roadblocks, so that he missed this op¬
portunity to meet the Syrians. Trever received them and looked
at the scrolls, and with Sowmy’s permission copied two lines from
the largest scroll. Puzzled by the form of the Hebrew alphabet
used in the manuscript, he compared it with the script of several
old Hebrew manuscripts, as illustrated in a collection of Koda-
chrome slides which he had prepared. The manuscript whose
writing seemed most like that of the scrolls was the Nash Papyrus,
a fragment variously dated by different scholars from the second
century b.c. to the third century a.d.
When Brownlee returned, Trever showed him the passage he
had copied, which he had soon found to be the first verse of the
sixty-fifth chapter of Isaiah. Others, as we have seen, had already
identified this scroll as the book of Isaiah; one of the Syrians, in¬
deed, said that he thought one of the scrolls was Isaiah, but
Trever did not take the statement seriously because the Syrians
could not read Hebrew, and he did not know then that other
scholars had seen the manuscript.
The following morning Trever managed to get into the Old
City and visit St Mark's Monastery, where Butrus Sowmy in¬
troduced him to Archbishop Samuel. He was given permission to
photograph the scrolls, and the archbishop and Sowmy agreed to
bring them to the American School for that purpose. They also
brought out the Isaiah manuscript, in order that Trever might see
how much of the book of Isaiah it contained. Unrolling it with
12 The Dead Sea Scroll ?
difficulty, he copied what seemed to be the beginning of the first
column, which turned out to be the first verse of the first chapter
of Isaiah.
The scrolls were brought to the school on Saturday, February
21, and the two young scholars began the difficult task of photo¬
graphing them. The following Tuesday afternoon, having com¬
pleted the first stage of their task, Brownlee and Trever took the
scrolls back to the monastery in the Old City. During the rest
of the week the development of the negatives was completed, and
prints were made from them. A few of the first prints made were
sent to Professor William F. Albright of Johns Hopkins Univer¬
sity, to get his judgment on the nature and age of the manuscripts.
Prints of the Isaiah scroll and the two scrolls later identified as
parts of the Manual of Discipline were made first. On Friday,
February 27, prints of another scroll were completed, which
Brownlee discovered to be a commentary on the first two chapters
of the book of Habakkuk. The contents of the other two scrolls
were not determined until after I returned from Baghdad.
A complete set of the photographs was given to Archbishop
Samuel. According to his account, it was after he received these
that Kiraz asked his permission to show the scrolls to Sukenik at
the YMCA. The Archbishop suggested, he tells us, that Kiraz take
the photographs, but Kiraz protested that they were not large
enough. This does not agree with Sukenik’s statement that, after
copying some of the Isaiah manuscript, he returned the scrolls to
Kiraz on the sixth of February, three weeks before Trever’s
photographs were finished. How the discrepancy is to be resolved
I do not know. In any case, Archbishop Samuel decided to retain
possession of the scrolls and entrust their publication to the
American School of Oriental Research, while Kiraz assured
Sukenik that the Hebrew University would be given priority when¬
ever the scrolls should be offered for sale.
Late Saturday afternoon, February 28, our party returned to
Jerusalem. To my relief I learned that there had been no trouble
at the school during our absence, though there had been a fright¬
ful bomb explosion in the city, causing more than fifty deaths. My
The First Discoveries 13
diary says: “Everything OK at the school, but John and Bill all
excited over manuscripts at the Syrian Convent in script John
thinks older than the Nash Papyrus, including the whole book of
Isaiah, a text of Habakkuk with midrashic material in verse (so
Bill says), and an unidentified composition resembling Wisdom
Literature.” The unidentified composition was, of course, the
Manual of Discipline.
Monday morning, March 1, I went with Trever to the monas¬
tery, after securing fom the Arab Higher Committee a pass into
the Old City, now carefully guarded at every entrance. At the
monastery I met Archbishop Samuel and saw the scrolls. In a small
fragment of the badly damaged fourth scroll which had come
loose, my eye caught the word ’ara, and I remember excl a i min g in
surprise, “This is Aramaic 1 ”
That afternoon we had our first class session on the Habakkuk
Commentary. One of the courses I was giving was in epigraphy,
and we agreed to devote the rest of our time in this course to the
study of the scrolls.
The first photographs of the Isaiah scroll proved unsatisfactory
because the limited amount of film at hand compelled Trever
to photograph two columns on each sheet, and so the photographs
were too small for adequate enlargement. It was therefore neces¬
sary to photograph the scroll again, but finding suitable film of the
right size proved very difficult. The best that could be found was
some outdated portrait film.
Under such circumstances it was remarkable that the photo¬
graphs came out as well as they did. The plates in our subsequent
publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls were made from these photo¬
graphs. Critics of the publication who do not consider the re¬
productions satisfactory have not seen the manuscript itself. Some
have said that the manuscripts should have been rephotographed
after they were brought to the United States, but they were not
then in our possession, and Archbishop Samuel was unwilling to
have them photographed again.
Still the Aramaic scroll had not been unrolled. On Wednesday,
March 3, the archbishop gave Trever permission to attempt to
The Dead Sea Scrolls
open it; Butrus Sowmy, however, with some justification, was
opposed to the undertaking, and it was postponed in the hope that
it might be carried out later with better facilities in Europe or the
United States.
On the morning of Thursday, March 4, Mr. R. W. Hamilton,
the Director of the Department of Antiquities, came to see me at
the school. As I looked back on our conversation later, it seemed
strange that the subject of the scrolls had not come up at all. Both
Mr. Hamilton and I were just then much more concerned about
other matters. The purpose of his call was to discuss plans for the
administration of the Palestine Museum after the impending
termination of the British Mandate.
The department, however, was not uninformed about the scrolls.
It will l)c remembered that one of the first persons to see the
manuscripts at St. Mark’s Monastery was a member of the De¬
partment of Antiquities, Stephan H. Stephan. Mistakenly regard¬
ing them as useless, he apparently did not think it worth while
to make any report to the department concerning them. Two
years later Hamilton wrote to me that Stephan had never even
mentioned the scrolls to him.
He was told about them by Trever, but at the time of their first
conversation Trever did not yet know that the scrolls had been
discovered within the past year. Archbishop Samuel and Sowmy,
with characteristic caution, had talked vaguely at first about the
manuscripts as being in the library of their monastery, leaving
the impression that they had been there for about forty years,
and Trever was still under this impression when he first discussed
the scrolls with Hamilton. Not until March 5 was he told that the
scrolls had been found in a cave about a year earlier; he then told
Hamilton but did not make clear how recent the discovery was.
On March 20 Trever wrote to his wife: "I have already talked with
Hamilton at the Museum about the proper procedure. He has
given me permission to visit the place to gather up any loose ma¬
terials left” On February 27, the day before my return from
Baghdad, Trever had spoken about the antiquities laws with the
archbishop, who consequently relinquished a plan to visit the
The First Discoveries 15
cave and assured Trever that he “would cooperate in every way
possible with the American School of Oriental Research and the
Department of Antiquities in carrying out the excavation of the
cave.”
My diary mentions a visit of Archbishop Samuel and Butrus
Sowmy at the school on Monday, March 8, after which I drove
them back to Allenby Square in the school’s station wagon. My
note continues, “Three or four cars, especially station wagons, have
been stolen lately in broad daylight at the point of guns, though
most politely, so wo aren’t eager to take ours out.” Three days
later the building of the Jewish Agency was damaged by ex¬
plosives believed to have been brought in by an Arab using a car
that belonged to the American Consulate.
Most of the entries in my diary dining these weeks record shoot¬
ings, explosions, and casualties in Jerusalem and in other parts of
the country, with many rumors, like the one we heard on March 15
that our water supply had been poisoned. That same day, however,
Trever received a reply from Professor Albright, confirming his
judgment as to the age of the manuscripts and pronouncing the
find “the greatest manuscript discovery of modem times.”
On March 18 the archbishop called on me at the school, and
Trever and I discussed with him several matters concerning the
manuscripts. I expressed to him my conviction that the Isaiah scroll
was the oldest known manuscript of any book of the Bible, and he
was duly impressed. I also submitted for his approval a news
release I had prepared. Having learned by this time that the
manuscripts had been discovered in a cave near the Dead Sea, I
felt that it would materially help us in establishing their age if we
could visit the cave and find any remains of the jars in which they
had been found. We therefore discussed with the archbishop the
possibility of a trip to the cave. We talked also about plans for the
publication of the manuscripts by the American Schools of Oriental
Research.
My diary for March 19 says: “John saw the bishop again today
and learned that Dr. Magnes was taking an interest in the manu¬
scripts!” This was our first intimation of the negotiations between
16 The Dead Sea ScroUs
the Hebrew University and St. Mark’s Monastery. We still knew
nothing of the scrolls and fragments Professor Sukenik had
acquired.
During the morning of the twentieth we went with guards sent
by a good friend to the Haram, the sacred enclosure containing
the Dome of the Rock. Here we met a man from the shrine of
Nebi Musa, near the Jericho road, who said he could arrange for
us a trip to the cave. We were to drive to Nebi Musa and proceed
on foot to the cave, with a local Bedouin as guide. To our great
disappointment, when the appointed day came the man who was
to come for us did not put in an appearance. We were later told
that the trip was considered too dangerous because Jewish troops
were in training on the plain north and west of the Dead Sea. Who
was really responsible for the frustration of our plan we shall prob¬
ably never know, though we have our suspicions. We could not
go by ourselves, and could not have found the cave if we had
attempted it.
On March 25, Archbishop Samuel told Trever that Sowmy was
on his way with the manuscripts to a place outside of Palestine.
I myself had suggested that they were not safe in the monastery
in the Old City, and Trever had mentioned the possibility of re¬
moving them to another Syrian Orthodox monastery down by
the Jordan River. The soundness of these suggestions was demon¬
strated when St Mark’s Monastery was damaged by shellfire and
Butrus Sowmy himself was killed not many weeks later. The re¬
moval of the scrolls from the country, however, without an export
license from the Department of Antiquities, was illegal. How fully
the archbishop realized this I cannot say; I know only that we
tried to tell him. He had already, of course, taken the scrolls to
Syria and back.
In all fairness it should be remembered that for many cen¬
turies Palestine had not had an independent government of its
own, but had been ruled by one foreign power after another.
Under such circumstances it was not unnatural that there was
sometimes, even in high places, an attitude toward law which is
not entirely unknown in the Western democracies. It should be
The First Discoveries 17
said also, not as extenuating but as partly explaining what hap¬
pened, that in March 1947 there was no longer any effective
government in the country, and no perceptible prospect of any.
The Department of Antiquities was still carrying on as best it
could, but its major anxiety was to protect its treasures in the
face of impending chaos. What the future would bring, both to
Jerusalem and to the Dead Sea Scrolls, could not then be foreseen.
During the rest of the month of March we spent many hours
in making arrangements for our trip home. Conditions were grow¬
ing steadily worse. Facilities for transportation, communication,
banking, and other needed services had reached a point where
the word "facility’' was no longer appropriate. On March 27 we
held our last class, completing the first reading of the Habakkuk
Commentary.
The next day, Easter Sunday, was one of the saddest days I can
remember. An effort had been made to obtain a truce for the
day, but it broke down completely. On Tuesday, March 30,
Brownlee departed for America. My wife and I left Jerusalem on
April 2 but could not get away from Haifa for another two weeks.
Trever, after a final conference with Archbishop Samuel and
Butrus Sowmy on April 3, went down to Lydda on the fifth and
took a plane to Beirut.
On April 11, while my wife and I were still in Haifa waiting im¬
patiently for our ship to come into the harbor, the statement I
had sent from Jerusalem was released to the newspapers in
America. Unfortunately a mistake had somehow been introduced
into the version given to the press. I had written, “The scrolls were
acquired by the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark.” As
released to the press in America the statement said that the
scrolls had been "preserved for many centuries in the library of
the Syrian Orthodox Monastery of St. Mark in Jerusalem.” Who
inserted this I do not know. Professor Sukenik, on reading the
published account, issued a statement to set the matter right,
pointing out that the scrolls had been found in a cave near the
Dead Sea within the previous year. From this statement, which
I read in the Rome Daily American of April 28, 1948, when our
x 8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ship stopped at Genoa, I first learned that the discovery included
manuscripts other than those bought by Archbishop Samuel.
During the leisurely, restful voyage home in a small Norwegian
freighter I had time to “collate” the whole text of the Isaiah manu¬
script with the Masorctic or traditional Hebrew text, having
brought with me a set of Trever's photographs as well as a stand¬
ard edition of the Hebrew Old Testament. This collation was the
basis of articles published during the ensuing year.
The first trickle of published statements concerning the scrolls
soon swelled into a veritable flood. The American Friends of the
Hebrew University issued a special news bulletin on July 10.
A further statement appeared in their November bulletin. The
September number of the Biblical Archaeologist carried an article
by Trevcr on the discovery of the scrolls and one by me on their
contents and significance.
The same month saw the publication of Sukenik's first volume
on the manuscripts, entitled Megilloth Genuzoth (Hidden Scrolls).
In this he gave an account of his acquisition of the manuscripts in
his possession, with a summary of their contents as far as they had
been ascertained at that time, and the text of selected passages,
together with notes and some excellent photographs. The text of
Chapters 42 and 43 of the book of Isaiah, as copied by him when
he had Archbishop Samuel's scrolls in his possession, was in¬
cluded in this volume, side by side with the Masoretic text.
The October number of the Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research carried an article by Trever entitled “Prelimi¬
nary Observations on the Jerusalem Scrolls,” and the first part of
an article by me on variant readings in the Isaiah manuscript. The
December and February numbers contained a translation of the
Habakkuk Commentary by Brownlee, an article by H. L. Ginsberg
on Sukenik’s scrolls, the remainder of my article on the variant
readings in Isaiah, an article on the paleography of the scrolls by
Trever, and one on the date of the Isaiah scroll by Solomon A.
Bimbaum. Interested scholars were therefore fairly well informed
on the general nature and contents of the scrolls within a year
The First Discoveries 19
after we first learned of their existence. At the meetings of the
Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis and the American
Schools of Oriental Research at New York in December 1948,
Brownlee presented two papers on the Habakkuk Commentary,
anticipating some ideas that were later published independently by
other scholars.
Further discoveries were to follow, but already the first gun in
what soon came to be called “the battle of the scrolls" had been
fired. Suspicions and charges—with few, if any, retreats—followed
thick and fast. The smoke of battle has not even yet been quite
cleared away by the wholesome breezes of unimpassioned in¬
vestigation and discussion. Before we take up this rather fantastic
tale, however, something more should be said about the contents
and character of the scrolls.
Six distinct compositions are represented by the eleven scrolls,
or parts of scrolls, first discovered and removed from the cave by
the Bedouins in 1947. These are: (1) the Old Testament book of
the prophet Isaiah, contained in its entirety in the largest and
oldest of the scrolls, and also in part in one of those acquired by
the Hebrew University; (2) the Commentary on Habakkuk; (3)
the Manual of Discipline, which had come apart, so that when
discovered it was in two separate scrolls; (4) the Aramaic manu¬
script, now tentatively called the Lamech Scroll, which has not
been unrolled;(5) the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of
Darkness; and (6) the Thanksgiving Psalms contained in four
of the pieces bought by Professor Sukenik. Many fragments of
other books were found later when the cave and other caves in
the vicinity were explored. Others were bought from Bedouins
who had found them. No text discovered since 1947, however, is
comparable in extent to the first scrolls found then by the
Bedouins.
(1) The St. Mark’s manuscript of Isaiah is a scroll of leather
made of strips sewed end to end. When unrolled it is about 1 foot
wide and 24 feet long. It is remarkably well preserved, though
considerably worn by much use. In several places where the skin
20 The Dead Sea Scrolls
was tom it was repaired in antiquity, sometimes by careful sewing
and sometimes by attaching strips of skin to the back of the
scroll. The Hebrew text, written in fifty-four columns, is for the
most part still clearly legible. It does not, of course, have our
familiar division into chapters and verses, but it is divided into
sections and paragraphs, indicated by beginning a new line in
the margin when the preceding line has not been filled out, and
by indentation when the preceding line is full. Occasionally extra
space is left between the lines. Sometimes the larger divisions
correspond to our chapters; sometimes they do not. Within the
paragraphs there are often spaces between sentences, indicating
subdivisions which again may or may not correspond to the much
later division into verses.
There is a curious system of marks in the margins. Sometimes
a short horizontal line, with or without a small hook at one end,
marks the beginning or end of a passage. Sometimes there are
very elaborate figures, the mea n ing of which has not yet been
determined. The purpose of all these marks, in fact, can only be
guessed. Possibly they have something to do with a selection or
Scripture lesson for use in meetings or services of worship, though
the passages between two consecutive marks often seem too
short for such a purpose. Possibly they indicate portions of the
text considered especially important by those who used the manu¬
script.
The Hebrew text is written in the square or Aramaic alphabet,
the same alphabet from which the one still used for printing
Hebrew was developed in later times. The forms of the letters
in the Isaiah manuscript and the other Dead Sea Scrolls resemble
those found in Palestinian inscriptions from about the last cen¬
tury before the birth of Christ. Usually the different letters are
quite distinct in form, so that such confusion between one letter
and another as often occurs in other ancient manuscripts is hardly
possible. Unlike brief inscriptions, this manuscript is so extensive
that it gives a great many examples of each letter of the alphabet,
making possible a comparison that shows many interesting varia¬
tions and sometimes enables us to see just how the scribe wrote the
21
The First Discoveries
letters. Some of the details and their significance must be discussed
when we come to the question of the age of the manuscripts.
The text itself is by and large the same as that of our familiar
book of Isaiah, with many more or less important differences in
details. Both the differences from the traditional text and the
agreements with it are important, and we must consider them later
in attempting to assess the importance of the manuscript for
textual criticism. The text has evidently been examined and cor¬
rected, for at many points words written by mistake have been
erased or crossed out, and corrections have been inserted. Minor
corrections of a single letter or word appear in the scribe's own
hand; more extensive corrections have been made in another hand.
Letters and words omitted by the copyist are frequendy inserted
above the line. Where there is not room between the lines for all
that has been omitted, the inserted material runs on down the left-
hand margin. There are clear indications also at many points that
the copyist left a space for something that was missing or not clear
in the manuscript he was copying. The omitted portions of the text
were usually copied in later from another manuscript.
The Hebrew University manuscript of Isaiah, one of the scrolls
bought by Professor Sukenik, is not, like the first, a complete copy
of the book. Its contents were not identified for some time after
the discovery and purchase of the scrolls, because it was so tighdy
compressed that the attempt to unroll it was postponed until the
other scrolls had been opened and some skill for the delicate task
had been developed. When this was undertaken, the scroll was
found to consist of one large piece and several smaller pieces. The
material had deteriorated to such a degree, however, that the
writing was in many places illegible except by means of infra-red
photography. Finally it was ascertained that the large piece con¬
tained the last third of the book of Isaiah, from Chapter 38 to
the end, with some gaps. The smaller pieces contained parts of
Chapters 10, 13, iq-30, and 35-40. Apparently the scroll had been
already in a fragmentary condition when it was deposited in the
cave. The text of this manuscript, unlike that of the St Mark’s
Isaiah scroll, agrees closely with the Masoretic text of later manu-
22 The Dead Sea Scrolls
scripts. This fact is important for assessing the value of both manu¬
scripts and their significance for the history of the text of the Old
Testament (see pp. 303-15).
(2) The scroll containing the Commentary on Habakkuk is rela¬
tively small. The beginning has been lost, but apparently only
one column is missing. The rest is fairly complete, except that the
bottoms of the columns have been eaten away, and there are a
few holes in some of the columns. Unrolled, the scroll is 5 feet
long; originally it must have been 6 or 7 inches longer. At present
it is only 5% inches wide at the widest points. The original width
can be fairly estimated at about 7 inches. The text is even more
clearly and beautifully written and much better preserved than
that of the first Isaiah scroll. The form of the script indicates a
somewhat later d^te, and the scroll was not handled as much as
the Isaiah manuscript before it was left in the cave.
In some respects this curious little document is the most inter¬
esting and important of all those found for the identification and
history of the group that produced it. Reference is made to specific
persons and events in a mysterious way that is tantalizing. These
allusions require some discussion later, in connection with the au¬
thenticity and dates of the scrolls and the history and beliefs of
the sect that possessed them. At this point a general description
and a few brief excerpts will suffice to convey an idea of the nature
and contents of the work.
The first column of which any part is preserved begins with
words from the second verse of the first chapter of Habakkuk.
Only a few words at the ends of the lines remain in this column;
those at the bottom are from the fourth verse of the same chapter.
The next column is better preserved, but with a wide gap from top
to bottom in the middle of the lines. Its first words are from the
fifth verse of Habakkuk 1.
The method followed throughout the work is to quote the text
of Habakkuk, a few words at a time, and follow each quotation
with an explanation in terms of the history of the sect, in which the
fulfillment of the prophecy is seen. For example, the sixth verse of
the first chapter of Habakkuk, “For lo, I am rousing the Chaldeans,
The First Discoveries 23
that bitter and hasty nation,* is quoted with this comment: “This
means the Kittim, who are swift and men of valor in battle * But
who are the Kittim? The answer to this question is important for
determining when the commentary was written, and we shall
have to look into it in that connection. More is said about the
Kittim in the comments on subsequent verses, but there is nothing
sufficiently definite to make their identity entirely certain. For the
first readers, who knew the historical background and could recog¬
nize allusions obscure to us, the author's meaning was no doubt
unmistakable.
There are other and even more mysterious references, not only
to nations and groups but to individuals. The second half of the
thirteenth verse of Habakkuk 1 is quoted, for instance, with slight
variations from the standard text: "Why do ye look on faithless
men, but thou art silent at the swallowing by the wicked man of
one more righteous than he?" Then comes the comment: “This
means the house of Absalom and the men of their party, who kept
silence at the chastisement of the teacher of righteousness, and
did not help him against the man of the lie, who rejected the law
in the midst of their whole congregation." If we can tell who the
house of Absalom, the teacher of righteousness, and the man of
the lie were, and what was the event referred to here, we shall
know something definite about the history of the religious commu¬
nity in which this commentary was written. Many ingenious theo¬
ries have been proposed, but we cannot adopt any one of them
without examining them all and comparing them carefully.
The teacher of righteousness was clearly, in any case, the leader
and perhaps the founder of this community. He was evidently be¬
lieved by his followers to be endowed with the gift of interpreting
prophecies; in fact, he could explain what was dark even to the
prophets themselves. He was violently opposed and persecuted by
a man called in the commentary “the wicked priest," The perse¬
cution reached its climax in a vaguely described event on the Day
of Atonement No passage in any of the Dead Sea Scrolls has
aroused more discussion and even controversy than this.
These and other exasperatingly vague references to persons and
24 The Dead Sea Scrolls
events tell us almost all that we know about the origin and early
history of the sect. All must be considered later, but what has been
said may suffice to give a general preliminary conception of the
character of the document.
(3) The Manual of Discipline, as has been said, was in two
pieces, rolled up separately, when it was brought to the American
School of Oriental Research. Many cracks in the very brittle leather
showed that it had already been unrolled, perhaps several times, so .
that it is uncertain whether the two pieces were already separated
when they were found by the Bedouins. In any case, they are
consecutive portions of what was originally a single scroll made of
five strips of leather or parchment sewn together. The two pieces
together would make a scroll a little more than 0 feet long. The
beginning is missing, but the original length of the complete scroll
must have been about 7 feet at least. The width is about 9% inches.
The skin of which this scroll is made is of coarse texture, much
lighter in color than that of the other scrolls bought by Arch¬
bishop Samuel. It shows little evidence of hard wear and has not
suffered as badly as have some of the other scrolls from the ravages
of time. White ants have eaten into the upper and lower edges, but
not deeply enough at the top to destroy any of the text except in
the first column, which has lost parts of the first two lines. At the
bottoms of the columns parts of from one to three lines have been
eaten away, except in the last column, only two-thirds of which
were needed to complete the document.
The Utle “Manual of Discipline" is not given in the text itself,
but came to my mind when I first read the text in Jerusalem in
March 1948. Noting the combination of liturgical directions with
rules concerning procedure in the meetings of the group and the
personal conduct of the members, I was reminded of the manual
of discipline of the Methodist Church. I am not a member of that
church and cannot be sure I have ever seen its manual of discipline,
but I have the impression that it contains a somewhat similar com¬
bination of liturgical and disciplinary directions.
Since the scroll clearly did not represent the beliefs and prac¬
tices of rabbinic or “normative" Judaism, but came from some sect
The First Discoveries 25
or group within Judaism, we at first spoke of it as ‘The Sectarian
Document,” but this was obviously not a satisfactory designation.
In our initial news release of April n, 1948, the composition was
called “a manual of discipline of some comparatively little-known
sect or monastic order, possibly the Essenes ” In the Biblical Ar¬
chaeologist for September 1948, I spoke of it as “a curious work
which I will call for the present the Sectarian Document” (p. 57),
but I added (p. 58): “The text which I have called the Sectarian
Document may be described as the manual of discipline of some
group within Judaism.” After a summary of its contents I con¬
cluded (p. 60): ‘This again appears to confirm the idea that our
text is the manual of discipline of a group organized like the later
monastic orders in Christianity.”
Sukenik, at the suggestion of Henoch Yalon, proposed later the
Hebrew title Serek ha-Yahad (“The Order of the Community”),
a title which is not only descriptive but also appropriate, because
it uses two of the most characteristic terms in the vocabulary of
this document. For scholarly discussions in various languages this
title may well displace mine, but for the purpose of a more gen¬
eral account "Manual of Discipline” is convenient, and it has the-
advantage of having been adopted already by many of the scholars
who have written about the scrolls.
The original title, if there was one, has been lost, because the
beginning of the scroll, like that of the Habakkuk Commentary,
had been damaged and detached before the manuscript came into
the possession of Archbishop Samuel. Unfortunately there is noth¬
ing to indicate how many columns are lost. Among the fragments
later purchased by the Palestine Museum from antiquities dealers
there were two almost complete columns that apparently belonged
to this manuscript. There was also a tiny fragment bearing a few
letters in larger writing, which may have been part of the original
title of the composition, but they are not sufficient to show what
that title was.
The first of the two columns recovered by the Palestine Museum
begins with an expression that introduces several sections of the
Manual, but it clearly does not mark the beginning of the whole
26 The Dead Sea Scrolls
compositon. The bottom of the second column is unfortunately
too much damaged to allow us to determine whether or not it
immediately preceded what is now the first column of the scroll.
Father Barths lemy believes that these two columns are not really
part of the Manual of Discipline, but contain a distinct document
that was merely copied at the beginning of the scroll. There must
have been at least one more column, and probably more than that,
preceding the present beginning of the scroll As a matter of fact,
parts of as many as five columns belonging to this document are
believed to have been identified at the Palestine Museum.
If Barth&lemy is right in supposing that the two relatively com¬
plete columns, though from the same manuscript as the Manual of
Discipline, did not originally form part of the same composition,
both of the two documents copied together in the scroll must have
been accepted by the group at the time when the manuscript was
made. In fact, the lack of unity or logical order in the contents of
the Manual of Discipline itself suggests that it was compiled gradu¬
ally in scrapbook fashion from various sources.
A brief summary must suffice for the present to indicate the gen¬
eral contents of this document. The first column of the scroll be¬
gins in the midst of a passage that states what is expected of those
who “enter into the covenant,’' and so become members of the
community. Then follow directions for the ceremony of entering
into the covenant, an annual observance in which not only the new
members but the whole community must participate. At the mid¬
dle of the third column a new section begins, dealing with the
origin and future destruction of sin. At the top of the fifth column
we come to rules of organization and discipline, which occupy five
columns. The document is concluded with a devotional poem or
psalm.
(4) The Lamcch Scroll is compressed and coagulated. It is
brittle and hard and tends to crumble. In places the leather has
solidified into a kind of natural glue. A few little scraps and one
whole column have become detached since the scroll was dis¬
covered, but only very careful, expert treatment can ever unroll
enough to recover any considerable part of the text, if indeed this
i
The First Discoveries 37
is possible at all. The unsuccessful efforts made by the American
Schools of Oriental Research to arrange for such treatment are
related in another chapter.
(5) The scroll of the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of
Darkness seems to be unique in being almost entirely preserved,
except that its lower edge is badly eaten away. It is more than 9
feet long when unrolled, and a little more than 0 inches wide. It
consists of three strips of leather, with pieces of another strip.
When bought by Sukenik, it was still wrapped in a piece of parch¬
ment. That some of the other scrolls originally had covers sewn
to the outermost columns is shown by a row of needle holes at
the end that was outermost when the scroll was rolled up. The
scroll of the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness is
the only one that still has its outer wrapping.
There are nineteen columns of text. The document contains di¬
rections for the conduct of a war between the tribes of Levi, Judah,
and Benjamin, who are called the sons of light, and the Edomites,
Moabites, Ammonites, Philistines, and Greeks, who are called the
sons of darkness. Whether the war contemplated is an actual con¬
flict that was being waged or was impending at the time when
the document was written, or whether it is an eschatological war,
like that predicted in the book of Ezekiel and the Revelation of
John, is a question to which no final answer can yet be given.
(6) The Thanksgiving Psalms ( Hodayot), when Sukenik bought
them, were in four pieces. Three of these were crushed together
in a bundle; the fourth was one of the two scrolls which Sukenik
was for some time unable to open. The four pieces contain alto¬
gether twelve columns, each about 13 inches high, with as many
as thirty-nine lines of writing in a column. The columns are thus
a little higher and contain more lines than those of the St. Mark's
Isaiah manuscript, none of which has more than thirty-two lines.
The columns are of about the same width and the writing of about
the same size as in the Isaiah manuscript.
The psalms, of which there are about twenty altogether, resem¬
ble somewhat those of the Old Testament and often echo the
language of the Bible. They are of interest as showing that the prac-
a8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
tice of composing hymns of praise was by no means extinct. While
they may not have the same degree of poetic power and originality
as the old Testament Psalms, they are at least the equal of most of
the hymns we sing in our churches, and the difference between
them and the biblical psalms is a relative matter, concerning which
our judgment may not be entirely objective. A fairer comparison
may be made with other post-biblical psalms, such as the Psalms
of Solomon and the canticles in the first two chapters of the Gospel
of Luke. Because of our ignorance concerning events and circum¬
stances to which allusion is occasionally made, some portions of
the text are now obscure.
In addition to these complete or relatively complete scrolls,
there are the small fragments of other manuscripts sold to Arch¬
bishop Samuel and Professor Sukenik, others which turned up
later in the hands of Bedouins and antiquities dealers, and enor¬
mous quantities discovered since in the caves. The extent and
variety of their contents must be indicated very briefly.
Among the fragments acquired by the Syrian archbishop, ap¬
parently from an illegal excavation of which more will be said
later, there are three bits of the book of Daniel. Two of them, con¬
taining part of the Aramaic text of Daniel 3:23-30, are from a
single manuscript, written in a script like that of the St. Mark’s
Isaiah scroll. The other, which includes parts of two adjacent
columns, is from a later manuscript whose writing resembles that
of the Habakkuk Commentary. The extant portion of the right-
hand column contains portions of Daniel 1:10-17; the one to the
left contains part of Daniel 2:2-d. The first two pieces measure
respectively 4 by 4% inches and 2% by 2% inches. The third is
5 inches high and 3 inches wide. Students of biblical language and
text are interested to observe that the point in Daniel 2:4 where
hand column of the third fragment, and the change of language ap¬
pears there just as in later manuscripts. This is especially signifi¬
cant, because these scraps may be closer in date to the original
composition of the book of Daniel than is the case with any other
extant manuscript of a book of the Bible.
II
Alarms and Excursions
TJTJTTirLriJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJ^^
The first question that occurs to one who hears for the first time
of such an extraordinary discovery as that of the Dead Sea Scrolls
is, “Can they be genuine?” The forgery of antiquities is a prosper¬
ous occupation in countries where archeologists have been at work
for many years and have found statues, coins, inscriptions, and
other objects for which museums and collectors pay good prices.
Skillful craftsmen can make imitations of such antiquities which
the best experts are hardly able to detect. Forgeries of inscriptions
and manuscripts have not been unknown in Palestine also, though
they have not hitherto been very common, because Palestinian
excavations do not yield many objects that lend themselves to
this nefarious purpose.
When I first saw Trever’s photographs of Archbishop Samuels
manuscripts, I naturally asked myself, “Are these not forgeries?”
I confess, however, that I could never really bring myself to take
this question seriously, especially after I had seen the manuscripts
themselves. The fact that they looked old, of course, proved noth¬
ing, and the writing was amazingly clear. What impressed me
most from the beg innin g, however, was the fact that the forms of
the letters represented a period in the history of the alphabet for
which we had relatively few specimens, and most of these had
become known fairly recently.
For somewhat earlier and somewhat later periods we have many
more inscriptions, and also papyri. As I have already related. Dr.
29
30 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Trever noted immediately the resemblance between the scrolls
and the Nash Papyrus. He saw also, however, that the two types
of script were not quite contemporary, and he judged that the
Nash Papyrus was somewhat later than the scrolls. I agreed with
him, and our judgment was supported by the letter which Trever
soon received from Professor Albright.
Paleography, the comparative study of the script, was at first
our only means of dating the scrolls. It remains one of the most
important criteria. Scientific analyses of the leather, the ink, and
the linen wrappings of the scrolls would later contribute some¬
what to the solution of the problem, but such techniques were not
available to us in Jerusalem in the troubled circumstances of that
time.
All these criteria, of course, apply to the age of the manuscripts
themselves and the time when they were made. Archeological evi¬
dence later served to fix the time they were left in the cave, but
that too was beyond our reach in the spring of 1948 because of
our inability to visit the cave. Since the scrolls were presumably
copies, not original manuscripts, the time when the books they
contained were composed could not be determined by paleog¬
raphy, by analysis of the leather and ink, or by the archeological
context. Only the internal evidence of the texts themselves could
help us here.
There were surprising peculiarities of spelling and grammar in
the texts. These might have been attributed to the individual ec¬
centricities or mere ignorance of the scribes but for the fact that
the same peculiarities occurred in different manuscripts, obviously
not copied by the same scribe. The possibility that these features
reflected a local dialect had to be considered, but it was possible
also that they might point to a particular period in the history of
the Hebrew language. Only careful and prolonged investigation
could show whether or how far geographical or chronological dif¬
ferences might explain the grammar and spelling of the scrolls.
There were also distinctive words and ideas that might be found
especially characteristic of a particular historical period. These too
called for protracted study and discussion by many scholars. It is a
Alarms and Excursions 31
satisfaction to be able to say now that all the subsequent investiga¬
tions, debates, and further discoveries have only confirmed the
substantial accuracy of Trever’s first estimate of the age of the
scrolls.
In our news release of April 11, 1948, we risked the statement
that the Isaiah manuscript came from “about the first century
b.c." Sukenik’s release later in the same month also said that some
of the manuscripts were “more than two thousand years old” This
judgment did not stand long without challenge. As early as Oc¬
tober 1948, Professor Solomon Zeitlin of the Dropsie College, with¬
out having seen any of the texts, included in an article on another
subject an expression of doubt concerning the authenticity of the
Habakkuk Commentary. In January 1949 he published an article
declaring on the basis of a portion of the first two columns, of
which a photograph had then appeared, that the commentary was
not ancient but medieval in origin. The Manual of Discipline was
assigned to the same period on the basis of one column which
had been published. Sukenik’s first volume, which had come out
meanwhile, received equally cavalier treatment, with the con¬
clusion, “It seems that the entire find is not an important discovery
but possibly a hoax.” The arguments marshaled then and later by
Zeitlin against the antiquity of the scrolls are examined in Chapters
TV and V of t h is book. They dealt chiefly with words and ideas
which he maintained did not occur in Jewish writings before the
Middle Ages. He denied categorically that commentaries on books
of the Bible existed in earlier times.
Other scholars on the whole accepted the genuineness and an¬
tiquity of the scrolls with only mild expression of quite laudable
caution, reserving fi n al judgment until the texts could be pub¬
lished. Professor Zeitlin, however, stood by his guns and continued
to bombard all and sundry who came to the defense of the scrolls.
To follow here in detail the warm debate which ensued in learned
journals and in the public press would be unprofitable. The es¬
sential points receive attention when we take up the question of
dating the manuscripts.
The discussion entered a new phase when the cave where the
32 The Dead Sea Scrolls
manuscripts had been found was rediscovered and excavated.
Much of the controversy and doubt might have been obviated if
the cave could have been immediately excavated or even inspected
by competent archeologists when the first scrolls were found. Not
only was that impossible; the cave was visited several times by
unauthorized and incompetent persons before any archeologist
knew of the discovery. In November or early December 1948, be¬
fore order had been established in the country after the fighting
of that year, unscrupulous individuals interested in nothing but
plunder and gain cut a second opening into the cave, lower than
the natural opening. They dug up the floor of the cave and threw
some of the rubbish outside. An accurate description of the cave’s
condition and contents as first found by the Bedouins was thus
rendered forever impossible.
The man whose efforts finally led to the rediscovery and ex¬
cavation of the cave was an observer for the United Nations, the
Belgian Captain Philippe Lippens, who had studied at the Uni¬
versity of Louvain. Shortly before taking up his work in Palestine
ho had read an account of the first discovery which aroused his
keen interest. Early in December 1948, while staying at the King
David Hotel, he discussed the matter with the head of the Pontifi¬
cal Biblical Institute in Jerusalem; and on December 15, when
he first had an opportunity to cross the armistice fine, he visited
St. Mark’s Monastery and talked with two of the monks, whom
he found “very polite but suspicious.’’ Thence he betook himself
to the American School of Oriental Research and learned that
Professor O. R. Sellers, my successor as Director of the School,
was equally interested in locating the cave.
On January 11, 3949, Captain Lippens, after a brief leave of
absence, returned to Jerusalem and talked with Professor Sellers.
He also called on Father de Vaux of the French School of Archeol-
ogy, who showed him several articles about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
A reference in an article by Trever to our unsuccessful project
of visiting the cave fanned the spark of Captain Lippens’ interest
into a flame of passionate determination. On the seventeenth of
January he visited Father de Vaux again and agreed that if he
Alarms and Excursions 33
succeeded in finding the cave he would proceed to excavate it
with Father de Vaux as technical director.
Through the mediation of another Belgian officer attached to the
United Nations, Major Simon, Captain Lippens was able on Janu¬
ary 24 to talk with General Lash, the British Commander of the
3rd Brigade of the Arab Legion at Ramallah, who summoned his
archeological adviser. Colonel Ashton. General Lash also tele¬
phoned to Mr. G. L. Harding, Chief Inspector of Antiquities for
the government of Jordan at Amman, and learned that he too was
interested in finding the cave. As a result of these conversations
General 1 -ash decided to send two Bedouins serving in the Arab
Legion to look for the cave under the command of Colonel Ashton,
with the understanding that Captain Lippens would serve as tech¬
nical consultant and the enterprise would be conducted in full
cooperation with Mr. Harding.
Five days after his conversations with General Lash and Colonel
Ashton, Captain Lippens was transferred from Jerusalem to Am¬
man. He immediately consulted Mr. Harding, who informed him
that the project of General Lash had already been carried out and
the cave had been found. Later Captain Lippens learned that the
two Bedouins had been unable to secure the desired information,
but Colonel Ashton himself and Captain Akkash el-Zebn of the
Arab Legion had searched for the cave- and discovered it on the
twenty-eighth of January. The keen eye of Captain Akkash el-
Zebn had detected in front of the cave the fresh earth and pot¬
sherds thrown out by the clandestine treasure-hunters in Novem¬
ber or December. Colonel Ashton had then entered the cave and
found in it many pieces of linen wrappings and a large quantity of
potsherds.
Whether this was actually the same cave as that in which the
discovery of 1947 had been made could not be determined with¬
out excavation. Harding visited the place early in February. A few
days later he went again, taking with him, at Captain Lippens’
suggestion, Father de Vaux. Professor Sellers, on his way to Beirut
on February 3, saw at Amman some manuscript fragments and
potsherds that Harding had found in the cave.
34 The Dead Sea Scrolls
A systematic excavation was then carried out by Harding and
de Vaux, with the help of two men from the Palestine Museum,
one from Amman, and a guard from the Arab Legion. They worked
fifteen days, during a period of almost three weeks, until March
5. Lippens visited the excavation on February 11 and on two later
occasions. Sellers, whose return from Beirut had been delayed by
rain and snow, visited the site on February 18 and February 26
with D. C. Baramki of the Palestine Museum.
Working with difficulty in the narrow space, so restricted that
only small implements could be used and not more than two men
could work in the cave at the same time, the excavators carefully
gathered every little potsherd, every bit of linen, and every tiny
fragment of parchment, whether or not it bore any writing. The
results removed all doubts on the part of the archeologists them¬
selves that this was the cave in which the Bedouins had originally
found the scrolls bought by Professor Sukenik and Archbishop
SamueL
At first, indeed, they believed that some of the fragments they
found belonged to the same scrolls. This impression was not sub¬
stantiated by the more thorough investigation made subsequently.
What seemed to be pieces of the Habakkuk Commentary turned
out to be bits of similar commentaries on other books of the Old
Testament. One fragment has been found to belong to a commen¬
tary on the book of Micah and another to a commentary on Psalm
110. Further examination, however, only made it more and more
evident that the fragments found in the excavation and the scrolls
sold by the Bedouins were alike in material, writing, state of
preservation, and contents. They had indubitably belonged to
the same collection of documents.
Much recent evidence of depredation was found also. Mixed up
with the ancient debris were found exasperating remains of the
disastrous efforts of the treasure-hunters the previous winter. There
were bits of modem cloth, scraps of newspapers, cigarette stubs,
and even a cigarette roller bearing the name of one of the illegal
excavators, which Mr. Harding returned to its owner.
' The pottery found in the cave confirmed the Bedouins' story
Alarms and Excursions 35
of finding the scrolls in jars and also established the antiquity of
the manuscripts, though the date first assigned to it by de Vaux
and Harding, about 100 b.c:, proved later to be somewhat too
early. A few bits—the spout of a lamp and some pieces of a cook¬
ing pot—seemed to be later, coming from the late second or early
third century a.d. The excavators concluded that this handful of
later Roman potsherds, comprising not more than 5 per cent of the
total quantity, must have been left by intruders who had broken
into the cave and perhaps removed some of the manuscripts dur¬
ing the Roman period. It was recalled that the great theologian
and biblical scholar of the third century, Origen, had written of a
discovery of biblical manuscripts in a jar near Jericho in his time.
While the conclusions from this first excavation were to be cor¬
rected and modified somewhat by later discoveries, some questions
were answered. The first important step had been taken in the
scientific investigation of the problems raised by the discovery of
the scrolls.
The manuscript fragments found in the 1949 excavation in¬
cluded bits of several of the canonical books of the Old Testament
and some fragments of apocryphal writings, as well as several
works hitherto unknown. By 1952 about twenty different works
had been identified. Most of the fragments were in a script like
that of the scrolls found in 1947, but there were some in the
archaic Hebrew script, sometimes called Phoenician, and in a
form of it closely resembling that of the Lachish Letters from the
early sixth century b.c. Whether the scrolls of which these frag¬
ments were the only surviving remnants were really as old as the
Lachish Letters, or whether they represented a later arcbaistic use
of the ancient script, has been much discussed. We shall have to
come back to this question in considering the age of the manu¬
scripts. Several different documents were represented, but a num¬
ber of the fragments contained bits of Chapters 19 and 20 of the
book of Leviticus.
If anyone supposed that all the questions would be answered
and all doubts allayed by the excavation, he was doomed to speedy
disillusionment. Not a few scholars, especially those whose compe-
36 The Dead Sea Scrolls
tence was in fields other than archeology, received the new evi¬
dence with considerable skepticism. What, after all, they asked,
does the finding of jars from the Hellenistic period prove? What
exactly was the relation between the jars and the manuscripts?
Had the jars been made for the express purpose of containing the
manuscripts, or had jars much older than the manuscripts been
used for this purpose when the scrolls were hidden in the cave?
Might not the latter supposition explain the fact that a few Ro¬
man potsherds were found with them? Might not the manuscripts,
for that matter, have been put in the jars by the Bedouins, who
claimed to have found them but perhaps had smuggled them into
Palestine from Egypt?
Meanwhile the argument from paleography was being devel¬
oped, but it was also being subjected to attack. I have mentioned
two articles that appeared in February 1949. One was by Trever;
the other, which dealt with the St. Mark’s Isaiah Scroll only, was
the first of a series of articles by an eminent British authority on
Hebrew paleography, Solomon A. Bimbaum, of the University of
London. He concluded that the forms of the letters indicated the
first half of the second century b . c . as the time when the Isaiah
manuscript was made. Trover's date for this scroll was a little
later, about 125-100 b . c .; he proposed a date about 75 b . c . for the
Manual of Discipline, and one between 25 b . c . and 25 a . d . for the
Habakkuk Commentary and the Lamech Scroll. In June appeared
an article by Bimbaum in which he dated the Habakkuk scroll
between 100 and 50 b . c ., again considerably earlier than Trever’s
date. In a subsequent article Bimbaum dated the Manual of Dis¬
cipline at 150-100 b . c .; in another he narrowed his date for the
Habakkuk Commentary down to about 50 b . c ., and put the Manual
of Discipline at 125-100 b . c .
The methods used in reaching these conclusions were vigorously
attacked by Professor E. R. Lacheman of Wellesley College in an
article published in July 1949. Beginning with a re-examination of
the script of the Nash Papyrus, he criticized at length the method
which Albright had employed in assigning this papyrus to a pro-
Christian date, and which Trever had adopted in his treatment of
Alarms and Excursions 37
the Dead Sea Scrolls. Bimbaum’s arguments were mentioned only
incidentally. At the same time brief replies by Albright and me to
Zeitlin’s previous articles were published, with a rebuttal by
Zeitlin. In October Albright issued a reply to Lacheman’s article.
This was followed by a brief rejoinder from Lacheman with com¬
ments by Albright.
Meanwhile Archbishop Samuel had come to the United States,
having been appointed by his Patriarch as an Apostolic Delegate
to the Syrian Orthodox congregations in this country and Canada.
With him came his manuscripts, but in spite of widespread interest
in them efforts to find a buyer met with no success. Newspaper
reports putting the value of the manuscripts at the fabulous
amount of a million dollars probably discouraged some potential
purchasers; there were also ugly rumors in circulation concerning
the ownership of the scrolls, and these may have caused some to
hesitate. The matter was not simplified by the manner in which
the scrolls had been removed from Palestine. The former govern¬
ment was gone, and a new one did not take shape at once in the
part of the country still held by the Arabs. When this territory,
including the area in which the manuscripts had been found, was
incorporated with Transjordan in the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan, that government felt that the scrolls belonged to it as the
successor of the British mandatory government.
Public exhibitions of the scrolls were held at several places, be¬
ginning with one at the Library of Congress at Washington in
October and November 1949. During the next few years there
were exhibitions at Duke University, at the Walters Art Gallery
in Baltimore, at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
and at the Art Museum of Worchester, Massachusetts. Still there
were no buyers. At last, early in 1954, the scrolls were purchased
for the government of Israel by Sukenik’s son, the former Israeli
Army Cliief of Staff, Yigael Yadin. The acquisition was officially
announced about a year later, on February 13, 1955.
The fragments found in the excavation of the cave in February
1949 were taken to London for processing and study. Dr. Harold
J. Plenderleith, a chemist in charge of the research laboratory at
38 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the British Museum, worked patiently with them for three months,
gently trying to separate the brittle, partly decomposed leaves of
parchment or leather. By subjecting them to a controlled humidity
under glass until they were softened enough to come apart, and
then putting them into a refrigerator to harden the decomposed
matter, he was able gradually to separate about a hundred pieces
and fit them together. He ascertained also that the writing had
been done with carbon ink. Another result of Dr. Plenderleith’s
work was the discovery that what had at first been supposed to be
pitch, used presumably to seal up the scrolls, was actually decom¬
posed leather.
An article about the manuscripts by Mr. Harding appeared in
the London Times of August 9. Two days later the fragments were
placed on exhibition in London, and Dr. Plenderleith held a news
conference. Both the excavated fragments and the scrolls found
in 1947 now became a “front-page sensation” in the popular press,
which rediscovers the discovery every once in a while. A dash of
the spice of controversy was provided to whet the appetite of the
public by an interview with Professor G. R. Driver of Oxford
University in the Daily Mail of London. Speaking of the scrolls
bought by Archbishop Samuel, Driver was reported to have said,
“These things should have been submitted to the British Museum
laboratory, the only place qualified to handle them. The idea of
taking the scrolls to America seems to have been: “How much
money can we make out of it?’ ” Asked to comment on this state¬
ment, I pointed out that the scrolls were not in the possession of
the American Schools of Oriental Research, that the photographs
were to be published soon, and that meanwhile these photographs
were available on request to responsible scholars.
Professor Driver of course did not know that since April I had
been corresponding with Sir Alan Gardiner concerning the best
place and person for opening the Aramaic scroll. He had kindly
wntten to T. C. Skeat of the British Museum; and Skeat had dis¬
cussed the problem with Plenderleith, who said that he would like
to see the scroll but could make no suggestions without seeing it.
This correspondence only convinced us that there was no one in
Alarms and Excursions 39
England better qualified for the delicate task of unrolling the
scroll than one or two men here in the United States. In Sir Alan
Gardiner’s last letter to me, written just a week after Professor
Driver’s interview, he expressed regret at not having been able to
help us and concluded, "But now my old friend Ibscher is gone,
I should really not know where to turn in the case of very fragile
MSS.”
Driver not only criticized the manner in which the discovery
had been treated; he denied the pre-Christian date which Sukenik
and we had assigned to the scrolls. In a series of letters to the
London Times he presented his views, and other scholars joined in
the debate. The editor of the Palestine Exploration Quarterly wrote
in the issue for July-October 1949, “During the summer months of
this year the columns of the Times have served as the arena of a
pretty gladiatorial combat in which the retiarius with his net and
trident, in the person of Professor Godfrey Driver, seeks to en¬
tangle the mirmiUo, in the person of Mr. Leveen of the British
Museum, and to puncture the bubble of a pre-Christian date for
the scrolls. Dr. Bimbaum also has entered the fray and from the
expert epigraphist’s point of view has pronounced in favour of
the early date, as readers of this issue will see.” The reference here
is to Bimbaum’s article on the date of the Manual of Discipline.
The debate was not restricted to the col umns of the newspapers.
A lecture by Driver, which illness prevented him from delivering,
was read by Professor S. H. Hooke at a meeting of the Palestine
Exploration Fund in London. Dismissing the external archeologi¬
cal evidence as inconclusive. Driver argued that only the internal
evidence of script, spelling, and language could determine the
date of the manuscripts, and on this basis he judged them to be
possibly as late as the sixth or seventh century a.d. In the discus¬
sion following the lecture Birnbaum insisted that the script was
definitely pre-Christian, and no arguments drawn from internal
evidence could outweigh this fact. Driver’s arguments were pre¬
sented more fully in an article that appeared in October, followed
later by several other articles in various journals and by a lecture
that was published in 1951 as a monograph. While he eventually
4 ° The Dead Sea ScrolLi
modified his conclusions somewhat, he adhered to his main line
of argument, discounting the significance of archeological evi¬
dence and maintaining a late date on the basis of paleography and
language.
Meanwhile the efforts to arrange for unrolling Archbishop
Samuel's Aramaic scroll were proceeding. The archbishop sent the
scroll to the Fogg Museum of Harvard University, where
thoroughly competent treatment could have been given it. The
American Schools of Oriental Research took every step possible
to make sure that the work would be successful, but before it
could be begun the archbishop changed his mind and withdrew
the scroll.
During the previous spring Trever had detached a piece con¬
taining the major portion of one column of the text. It was on the
basis of what he could decipher in this column with the aid of
photography that he concluded, in consultation with Professor
Albright and Professor Charles C. Torrey, that the scroll contained
the lost “Apocalypse of Lamechknown hitherto only by name
from an ancient Greek list of apocalyptic writings. Trever now
tells me that I first called his attention to the name Lamech in
the text, and I remember suggesting that he look up the references
to lost apocalyptic works. His conclusion was announced in Octo-
b° r 1 949 - During the summer of that year it was announced also
that Sukenik, working on his manuscripts at Jerusalem, had suc¬
ceeded in unrolling another scroll and had found it to be a second
manuscript of Isaiah. This, of course, was the one that has already
been briefly described.
It must not be supposed that only British and American scholars
were interested in the scrolls. Within a year after the first an¬
nouncement of the discovery articles about the manuscripts had
appeared in Danish, Dutch, French, German, Hebrew, Latin,
Norwegian, Spanish, and Swedish, to mention only those of which
I have a record. There must have been many others, and many
more followed as the months went by. Not everything written was
important, of course, but significant contributions to the under¬
standing of the texts were made by scholars of many nationalities.
Alarms and Excursions 41
The most important of them are considered when we come to
examine the points in question.
Beginning in February 1949, an important series of articles on
the scrolls appeared in Germany in the Theologische Literatur-
zeiiung. One of the first articles was by Professor Paul Kahle, who
discussed the discovery of the scrolls, the significance of the Isaiah
manuscript for textual criticism, and the occasion and cause of the
hiding of the scrolls in the cave. An interesting new note was in¬
jected into the discussion by Professor Otto Eissfeldt in the Octo¬
ber number. He compared the discovery of the manuscripts with
an earlier incident in the same region, related in a Syriac letter
written about 800 a . d . by Timotheus, the Nestorian patriarch of
Seleucia, to Sergius, the Metropolitan of Elam. Among other mat¬
ters, Timotheus told Sergius of information he had received from
some trustworthy Jews who had been instructed in the Christian
faith. They said that books had been found ten years earlier in a
cave near Jericho. An Arab hunter, whose dog had pursued an
animal into the cave, followed it and found in the cave a little
building containing many books. He informed the Jews of Jeru¬
salem, who came in great numbers and found the books of the Old
Testament and others in Hebrew writing, including more than
two hundred psalms of David. This story, we shall see, has played
a considerable part in subsequent discussions.
One of the first serious attempts to determine the historical
setting of the Dead Sea Scrolls was made by a Swedish scholar,
Bo Reicke, then of Uppsala and now of Basel. In a previous publi¬
cation he had discussed the Damascus Document, a curious work
that will demand a good deal of our attention because it is closely
related to the Manual of Discipline and the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary. In 1949 he published a study of the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Damascus Document, propounding a theory that is still
important, in spite of the fact that its author himself later aban¬
doned it.
Both the ‘‘teacher of righteousness,” who appears in the
Damascus Document as well as in the Habakkuk Commentary, and
his adversary, the “wicked priest,” were regarded by Reicke as
4a The Dead Sea Scrolls
"super-individual" figures, representing respectively the true and
the false priests. In part, however, they were taken also to repre¬
sent individual high priests of the early second century b.c. The
teacher of righteousness was identified in particular with Onias
III, whom the Syrian king Antioch us Epiphanes deposed in 175
or 174 b . c .
The wicked priest was identified with Jason, the brother of
Onias and his successor as high priest, and also with Menelaus,
who succeeded Jason. That Jason or Menelaus might be the wicked
priest was suggested also in 1949 by I. L. Seeligmann in an im¬
portant review of Sukenik’s volume.
The "house of Absalom,” which according to the Habakkuk
Commentary failed to support the teacher of righteousness when
he was persecuted by the wicked priest, was thought by Reicke
to be a prominent family known as the Tobiads. They espoused
the adoption of Greek culture and customs, whereas the party of
Onias stood for the strict observance of the old Jewish traditions.
In spite of certain difficulties, this theory seemed to me for some
time very probable.
In December 1949 there appeared in a Hebrew periodical in
Israel an article that not only added new fuel to the fire of con¬
troversy but also injected an element of mystery and suspicion.
I have already told of the visit of Mr. Toviah Wechsler to the
Monastery of St. Mark with Mr. Stephan of the Antiquities Depart¬
ment in the summer or early autumn of 1947. The newspaper
article, which appeared two years later, stated, without mention¬
ing his name, that when Wechsler saw the scrolls in 1947 he recog¬
nized that they were forgeries. Having in the meantime been
convinced that the scrolls were both genuine and ancient,
Wechsler now wrote an article, which was published on Decem¬
ber 1,1949, explaining why he had at first doubted the authenticity
and antiquity of the Isaiah manuscript.
Chief among his reasons was the fact that with the manuscript
of Isaiah he was shown also another scroll, similar in appearance,
which he found to be a scroll of the Haftarot—Le., the selections
from the books of the prophets assigned for reading in the syna-
Alarms and Excursions 43
gogue after the reading from the Pentateuch. Between the suc¬
cessive Haftarot, he said, there were blank lines, and the last
column of the scroll was in part blank. At the end, he recalled
dimly, were the blessings to accompany the reading of the
Haftarot. The writing was like that of the Isaiah manuscript, but
in the margins were corrections of the texts in much blacker ink
which appeared quite new, suggesting that the scrolls must have
been in use fairly recently.
Wechsler concluded that both scrolls had been taken from a
synagogue genizah, or repository for discarded scrolls. Since there
had been no further mention of the Haftarot scroll in the mean¬
time, Wechsler suggested that the Syrians, on hearing his adverse
judgment, had decided not to make known the existence of this
scroll until they could sell the others. Later, when Sukenik’s manu¬
scripts became known, Wechsler decided that the Isaiah scroll
and the cave deposit as a whole were authentic and ancient, but
that the Haftarot scroll was of other and later origin.
This of course was grist for Zeitlin’s mill, and he lost no time in
using it In January 1950 he printed an article with the challenging
tide, “Where Is the Scroll of the Haftarot?” Other scholars were
naturally puzzled and concerned, and there were many demands
that the mystery be cleared up. Not the least of Zeitlin’s contribu¬
tions to the debate was his cordial readiness, as editor of the Jewish
Quarterly Review, to publish articles criticizing his own argu¬
ments. In the number following that which carried his article on
the Haftarot scroll he printed a reply by Trever, which proposed
what I believe to be the true explanation of the mystery.
Trever pointed out that Wechsler’s article, which acknowledged
frankly that his memory of the affair was vague at some points,
gave an inaccurate description of the Isaiah manuscript. Speaking
of the corrections which he remembered seeing in the margin of
the Haftarot scroll, Wechsler said, “Such corrections were not
found in the Isaiah scroll.” He said also that while the Haftarot
scroll was soiled and worn, the Isaiah manuscript showed little
evidence of having been used. The fact is that the Isaiah scroll
has many corrections, both in the margins and between the lines.
44 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and it is of all the scrolls perhaps the one which shows most
evidence of much handling.
On the other hand, what Wechsler mistakenly said of the
Isaiah scroll on these points is true of the Manual of Discipline,
and his observation that there are blank lines between successive
sections is equally applicable to that document. A hasty perusal
of one or two pages in which the language of the prophetic books
was used may have suggested a collection of Haftarot, and the end
of the concluding psalm in the partly blank last column of the Man¬
ual of Discipline may have looked, at a quick glance, like a blessing.
Trever's presentation of these facts did not convince either
Wechsler or Zeitlin. The controversy blazed up again a year later,
but meanwhile other and more important things were happening.
Early in 1950 the first volume of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St.
Mark’s Monastery was published by the American Schools of
Oriental Research. Brownlee and Trever assisted me in editing
it. It contained photographic facsimiles of the text of the Isaiah
manuscript and the Habakkuk Commentary, with a transcription
in the familiar printed form of the Hebrew alphabet, chapters and
verses being marked, to facilitate the use of the photographs.
Scholars the world over were thus enabled to study these two
documents in their entirety. Our purpose in issuing the texts in
this form was to allow time for scholarly discussion before we at¬
tempted to publish a volume of critical studies. None of us an¬
ticipated the enormous volume of discussion that actually ensued,
and of course no man could have foreseen the vast quantity of new
manuscript material that was still to be discovered.
In March 1950 Professor Sukenik issued his second volume of
the Hebrew University’s manuscripts. This included a few more
excerpts from texts that had not been published in the first volume
and gave a fuller account of Sukenik’s purchase of the scrolls and
his work on them.
The cloud of controversy was not at all dispelled by the publi¬
cation of the texts; in fact it grew larger and spread farther. In
the spring of 1950 France became the center of very lively debate
in response to the stimulating ideas of Professor Andr6 Dupont-
Alarms and Excursions 45
Sommer of the Sorbonne. On the twenty-sixth of May he presented
to the Acad&nie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres a communica¬
tion in which for the first time he propounded an interpretation
of the Habakkuk Commentary that was destined both to gain
many adherents and to arouse strong opposition. Within the same
year he published several articles and a small book, later trans¬
lated into English, further expounding and defending his views.
Dupont-Sommer maintained that the commentary was com¬
posed shortly before 40 b . c ., after the annexation of Palestine by
the Romans in 63 b.c., but before the end of the reign of Hyrcanus
II, the last ruler of the Hasmonean Jewish dynasty. The “Kittim"
of the commentary, he argued, were the Romans. The mysterious
“wicked priest” he regarded as representing both Aristobulus II,
the brother and predecessor of Hyrcanus II, and also Hyrcanus
himself. It was Aristobulus who persecuted the “teacher of right¬
eousness” and put him to death only a few months before the
capture of Jerusalem by Pompey, but the members of the com¬
munity founded by the teacher of righteousness believed that he
would soon return and take part in the last judgment. Dupont-
Sommer confidently identified this community with the Essenes
and held that the manuscripts had been hidden in the cave at the
time of the first Jewish revolt against Rome in 66-70 a.d. A recent
modification of this theory at one point is noted later.
On the same day that Dupont-Sommer’s communication was
presented in Paris, the Jerusalem Post carried the first part of an
article by M. H. Segal, Professor Emeritus of the Hebrew Uni¬
versity, maintaining a very different view of the date and historical
background of the manuscripts. The rest of the article appeared
on June 2. As far back as 1912 Segal had advanced the theory that
the Damascus Document, which had been found in the Old Cairo
genizah and had then only recently been published, reflected the
conditions of the reign of Alexander Janneus, 103-76 b . c . Between
this monarch and the Pharisees there was a bitter struggle. Accord¬
ing to Segal, the members of the sect that produced the Damascus
Document, though violently opposed to some of the teachings of
the Pharisees, had been united with them in opposition to
4 fl The Dead Sea Scrolls
Alexander Janneus, and with them had been compelled to take
refuge in Syria. The Dead Sea Scrolls now seemed to him to afford
a striking confirmation of his theory. The sect founded by the
teacher of righteousness, Segal suggested, probably arose among
the pietistic Hasidim of the Maccabean period. These and other
arguments and theories we must consider more fully later.
In July 1950 Zeitlin attempted to dispose of the whole subject
of the Dead Sea Scrolls by an article entitled, “The Hebrew Scrolls,
Once More and Finally.” It did not prove to be his last utterance on
the subject. In October a new ally came to his support in the per¬
son of Dr. P. R. Weis of the University of Manchester, whose
article, "The Date of the Habakkuk Scroll,” undertook by a very
learned discussion of the vocabulary and ideas of the commentary
to show that it betrayed Arabic influence. He concluded that it
referred to the crusaders and the Seljuk Turks, and was written
about 1096 a.d. by a member of a medieval Jewish sect. The He¬
brew University scroll of the War of the Sons of Light with the
Sons of Darkness was interpreted as a work of Messianic specula¬
tion, referring not to any historical war but to the final struggle
of the Messiah with Gog. Weis suggested that the "Kittim of
Egypt” and the "Kittim of Assyria” in this document might repre¬
sent "the Fatimids and the Seljuks who in 1071 fought each other
for the possession of Palestine.”
In October 1950 appeared another article by G. R. Driver,
who on the tenth of the same month also delivered the fourth Dr.
Williams Lecture for the Friends of Dr. W illiams 's Library of
London, taking the Dead Sea Scrolls as his subject. This lecture
was published the following year by the Oxford University Press
as a monograph. Still dismissing all the external evidence and
even the paleography as "useless,” Driver accepted as significant
only the “orthography and linguistic peculiarities,” and on the basis
of these proposed a date between 200 a.d. and 500 a.d., "towards
the end rather than the beginning of this period.”
The rising interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls among biblical
scholars was attested by the fact that when the First International
Congress of Old Testament Scholars was held at Leiden from
Alarms and Excursions 47
August 30 to September 2, 1950, I was invited to speak about the
scrolls at the opening session. My paper, together with the others
delivered at the congress, was published in the eighth volume of
Oudtcstamentische Studien , which was printed and bound in
time to be delivered to the delegates at the closing session of the
congress.
The following week there was an International Congress on
the History of Religions at Amsterdam, and I gave a brief paper
there on an interesting section of the Manual of Discipline which
presents theological conceptions recalling characteristic Iranian
ideas. I had hoped that there would be in my audience some
specialists in Iranian religion, and that in the discussion following
my paper they might elucidate the beliefs and possibly the deriva¬
tion of the sect. Unfortunately for me, at the same hour another
of the eleven sections into which the congress was divided had
a paper by Professor Baumgartner of Zurich on some recent
studies concerning the xMandean religion, and the experts in things
Iranian naturally went to hear that paper instead of mine. I
should have liked to hear it myself; but the little group of dis¬
tinguished Old Testament scholars who heard my presentation
made the time pass pleasantly, and I dare say I learned at least
as much from them as they learned from me.
In an article published in September 1950, Paul Kahle took up
the question of the time when the scrolls were deposited in the
cave. Rejecting as inconclusive the archeological evidence of
the pottery for an early date, he approached the problem from the
point of view of paleography and related considerations and con¬
cluded that the manuscripts could hardly have been left in the
cave before the third century a.d.
The Old Testament text of the biblical manuscripts was con¬
sidered also. Here for the first time Kahle made public an im¬
portant observation: the St. Mark’s Isaiah manuscript, he said,
exhibited not one but two forms of the Hebrew text, that of the
second half of the scroll being of a different type from that of the
first. In the second half, moreover, the scribe had left out portions
of the text, which had been filled in later, and in one case the text
4 ^ The Dead Sea Scrolls
of the later insertion agreed exactly with that of our traditional
text It could not, therefore, have been inserted in the manuscript,
Kahle declared, before the third century a.d. Sukenik’s Isaiah
manuscript, he said, was not written before the second century. In
the Old Testament text of the Habakkuk Commentary he found
nothing to prevent ascribing it to the beginning of the Christian
era. Some of these arguments, as we shall see, involve fallacies, but
Kahle's article raised important questions.
It also expressed a feeling shared by many scholars, which soon
led to unexpected and important results. Harding had remarked
in an article in the Illustrated London News that the small quan¬
tity of Roman pottery found in the cave seemed to come from
the time when the nearby site now known as Khirbet Qumran was
occupied. A preliminary sounding there by Harding and de Vaux
in 1949 had not revealed any connection with the cave, but Kahle
now called for an adequate excavation of the ruin, suggesting that
it might prove to be not merely a small Roman fortress but some¬
thing directly associated with the use of the cave.
At the annual meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study
at London in the first week of January 1951, Kahle expounded
again his views concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls. His paper ap¬
peared the same month in the first number of Vetus Testamentum,
the organ of the International Society of Old Testament Scholars!
which had been founded at Leiden the previous summer. A little
later Kahle published a book containing some lectures on the
scrolls which he had delivered at German universities in 1950.
In these publications Kahle aligned himself with the view of
Dupont-Sommer that the scrolls were the work of Essenes. He
accepted also Dupont-Sommer's view that the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary was composed about 40 b.c. and argued that the copy
of it found in the cave was probably made before 70 a.d. He still,
however, maintained that the manuscripts had not been deposited
in the cave before the third century a.d., and again he called for
the excavation of Khirbet Qumran.
Kahle also called attention to the importance of the Dead Sea
Scrolls for the study of the medieval Jewish sect of the Karaites,
Alarms and Excursions 49
not because the scrolls were produced by Karaites, as Zeitlin ar¬
gued, but because the Karaites had been influenced by tins earlier
Essene literature. He expressed the opinion that the cave in which
the manuscripts were found was the same one that had been
previously discovered about 800 a.d., as related in the letter of
Timotheus; indeed, he suggested that some of the texts found in
the Cairo genizah were medieval copies of manuscripts that had
been taken from the cave at the time of that discovery.
In order to pursue a more thorough investigation of the paleog¬
raphy of the scrolls, Trever secured a leave of absence from his
work with the International Council of Religious Education. With
the aid of grants from the American Schools of Oriental Research
and the American Philosophical Society he spent about two
months early in 1951 visiting the principal museums and libraries
in England and France. While there he photographed and studied
many of their manuscripts and discussed them with the leading
British and French scholars in the field, who afforded him every
courtesy and assisted him most generously. The results of his study
were summarized in a report to the American Philosophical Society
presented on April 25, 1952, and published in the Proceedings of
the Society. In a revised form it was also issued later by the
Smithsonian Institution.
Meanwhile, as a little interlude in the more serious scholarly
debate, the mystery of the “Haftarot Scroll” was revived. In
January 1951, a year after his first article on this subject, Zeitlin
published one by Wechsler and another by himself. Wechsler,
who felt that his moral integrity had been impugned, now claimed
that Trever himself had actually seen the Haftarot scroll “and had
e x a m i n ed it and recognized it as such!” He had also recognized,
Wechsler said, that it was of late date, but had been “told that it
did not come from the finds in the cave.” This startling charge was
based on a letter from Carl H. Kraeling, my successor as President
of the American Schools of Oriental Research, which, Wechsler
said, “stated explicitly” that Professor Kraeling had learned of
Trever s having seen the Haftarot scroll “from conversations with
Professor Burrows.”
5 ° The Dead Sea Scrolls
Being thus dragged into a dispute on a matter of which I had no
first-hand knowledge, I felt compelled to look into the question. At
the meeting of the American Oriental Society at Philadelphia in the
spring of 19511 presented the results of my inquiry, with a reply
to some of Zeitlin’s arguments; and he, with characteristic good
sportsmanship, published my paper in the October number of
his journal. Among other things, I pointed out that what I had told
Professor Kraeling was not that Trever had seen a Haftarot Scroll,
but that Archbishop Samuel, after coming to America, had shown
him a late Torah Scroll that had nothing to do with the Dead Sea
Scrolls. The statement cited by Wechsler was the result of a mis¬
understanding on the part of Professor Kraeling.
I quoted also a letter from Archbishop Samuel, assuring me
emphatically that he had no scrolls or pieces of scrolls from the
caves, either in his own possession or in the monastery at Jeru¬
salem, except those Trever had photographed. He added that
there was another modern Torah scroll in the monastery in addi¬
tion to the one he had shown Trever after coming to this country.
In the meantime, at my request and with the approval of Arch¬
bishop Samuel, Professor F. W. Winnett, then serving as Director
of the American School of Oriental Research at Jerusalem, had
gone to St. Mark’s Monastery with Professor R. B. Y. Scott to find
what Hebrew scrolls were in the library there. He was assured, as
I learned just in time to report it to the meeting at Philadelphia,
that the only Hebrew manuscript in the monastery in 1947, aside
from the Dead Sea Scrolls, was a late Torah scroll that had been
acquired in 1929—presumably the one mentioned in Archbishop
Samuel’s letter.
Since it seemed to me incredible that Wechsler could have sup¬
posed such a late scroll to be from one and the same collection as
the manuscript of Isaiah, I could only conclude from all these
facts, and still believe, that Trever was right in thinking that
Wechsler must have mistaken the Manual of Discipline for a scroll
of Haftarot The physical characteristics of this scroll and those of
the Isaiah scroll must have become confused later in his memory.
Alarms and Excursions 51
If anyone still has doubts or misgivings about this, I can say only
that no more probable explanation of the facts has been suggested.
While all this was going on, the discussion of Dupont-Sommer's
views on the scrolls was becoming very warm in France. As a
journalist put it in Lc Figaro littdraire for February 24, 1951,
"From the learned world the thunder rolls to the general public.”
What especially provoked no litde excitement was the distin¬
guished scholar's suggestion that in the person and career of the
teacher of righteousness many points in the belief of the Christian
religion concerning its Founder were anticipated. According to
Dupont-Sommer, the teacher of righteousness was believed to be
an incarnate divine being, who was put to death by his enemies
and was expected by his followers to rise from the dead.
Alarmed by what seemed a threat to the uniqueness of Jesus, a
number of Catholic scholars promptly attacked the interpretation
advanced by Dupont-Sommer. In the Jesuit journal Etudes for
February 1951, J. Bonsirven, an eminent authority on post-biblical
Judaism, accused the Sorbonne professor of sowing Christianity
all through the Dead Sea Scrolls and then being amazed to find it
there. Dupont-Sommer stoutly defended his position in a series of
publications. The points at issue will have to be considered on
their merits when we are ready to examine the meaning and im¬
plications of the texts.
Another theory made its appearance in England early in 1951.
An article on the Dead Sea Scrolls by J. L. Teicher appeared in
February, and a few months later a series of articles by the same
scholar began to be published. In these he proposed and defended
the view that the sect represented by the manuscripts was not
Jewish at all, but the primitive Christian sect known as the Ebion-
ites. This theory must of course be as fully and fairly considered
as any other. All that can be said of it at this point is that it shows
at least how complicated the problem is.
Throughout the year 1951 the stream of publications concern¬
ing the scrolls continued to swell. It was naturally not abated by
the fact that we were able to issue in February a fascicle of the
5026
S 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
second volume of The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark's Monastery ,
containing the photographic facsimiles and a transcription of the
Manual of Discipline. At about the same time an English transla¬
tion of the same document by Brownlee was published. We had
hoped to include with this text in our second volume the Aramaic
Lamech Scroll and the fragments bought by Archbishop Samuel,
but since the arrangements for unrolling the Lamech Scroll were
not proceeding satisfactorily, and we were unwilling to keep the
world of scholarship waiting longer for the Manual of Discipline,
we decided to bring this out separately. Of course it not only
provided very important material for solid research but also added
new fuel to the fires of debate. Translations of the scroll and
articles about it in several languages were published during the
ensuing months.
New evidence bearing on the dating of the manuscripts ap¬
peared also early in 1951. A piece of linen cloth found in the cave
when it was excavated was sent by Harding to America and sub¬
jected to the carbon-14 process by Professor W. F. Libby of the
Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago. The
result of the test was reported by Professor Libby to President
Kraeling of the American Schools of Oriental Research on the
ninth of January, and was published by Professor O. K Sellers in
February. The date thus established for the piece of cloth was
33 a . d ., plus or minus 200 years; Le., some time between 167 bx .
• and 233 a . d .
While this did not establish the age of the manuscripts them¬
selves, or provide as exact a date for their deposit in the cave as
might have been desired, it clearly indicated the general period of
history to which the scrolls belonged, confirming what had already
been inferred from other considerations. Any idea that the Dead
Sea Scrolls were of medieval origin thus became less defensible
than ever. It would have been helpful to apply the carbon-14
test to the manuscripts themselves, but this would have involved
the destruction of a large piece of one of them.
When the International Congress of Orientalists met in Septem-
Alarms and Excursions 53
ber at Istanbul, one morning's session of the Old Testament section
was devoted to papers on the Dead Sea Scrolls. One of the par¬
ticipants was Professor Sukenik from Jerusalem, who showed
some of the photographs made for the publication of his texts
which he was preparing, but which he was not destined to see
issued before his death. It was brought out posthumously in 1954.
Ill
Later Discoveries
injTjTjinjmrumnjmn^
While excavating the first cave in 1949, Harding and de Vaux, as I
have said, inspected briefly the nearby ruin, Khirbet Qumran.
They also excavated two nearby tombs. Since they found nothing
to indicate any connection with the cave and its manuscripts, the
common belief that the ruined building had been a small Roman
fortress still seemed as probable as any other explanation. Such
merely negative conclusions, however, did not satisfy scholars.
Kahle s insistence that the site should be thoroughly excavated hpy
been mentioned. The debate raging over the nature and date of the
deposit of scrolls in the cave made this clearly imperative.
Consequently, almost two years after their excavation of the
cave, Harding and de Vaux, with fifteen men, worked at the ruin
from November 24 to December 12, 1951. The main building,
about 118 feet long and about 94 feet wide, was uncovered at
the southwestern and northeastern comers. Two soundings were
made on the outside of it, and several more tombs in the adjoin¬
ing cemetery were excavated. In the southwestern comer of the
building three rooms with walls preserved to a height of about
9 feet were cleared. Extending along the base of the walls in the
largest of these rooms was found a carefully plastered bench,
about 8 inches high. There was also a small plastered area forming
a kind of basin just outside this comer of the building. Two other
rooms were excavated at the northeastern comer, one of them
being the comer room and the other an outside room built against
Later Discoveries 55
the north wall of the main building. Parts of a wall were found
in digging a trench to the west of the building.
The evidence provided by the plan and masonry was by no
means clear. New and specific information was afforded, how¬
ever, by bronze coins found in almost all the rooms, usually on
the floor. Their dates ranged from the beginning of the Christian
era to the first Jewish revolt (66-70 a . d .). It was thus evident that
the building had been in use during the first two-thirds of the
first century a.d., and its occupation had come to an end at about
the year 70, probably during the Jewish revolt. There were also
indications of a previous but, as it then seemed, less important
period of occupation, and what seemed to be traces of an Arab
occupation in the Middle Ages. Further excavation later neces¬
sitated some reinterpretation of this evidence.
A large amount of pottery was found also, some of it conform-
ing in type to forms found elsewhere in tombs from the time of
Herod the Great and the first century a.d., and some of it to pottery
found, together with coins of the same period, in excavations along
the north wall of Jerusalem. Among the potsherds at Khirbet
Qumran were some representing the same types as those found
in the excavation of the cave, indicating that these were not so
early as had then been supposed.
Even more surprising and significant was the appearance of a
complete jar of the same type as those in which the manuscripts
had been deposited in the cave. It was sunk in the ground in a
comer of one of the rooms, its mouth covered by a square piece of
limestone set level with the pavement. Although it was empty
when found, it must have been used for the storage of water, wine,
oil, or food. From this find de Vaux and Harding concluded that
they had been mistaken in regarding the jars that had contained
the manuscripts as of earlier manufacture than the Roman period.
It was therefore no longer necessary to suppose that the Roman
lamp and cooking pot whose fragments were found in the cave
had been brought in by intruders of a later century.
Another result of the excavation was to refute the supposition
that the building was a Roman fort This was excluded by its plan
5 ® The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the type of its construction. On the other hand, it did not
seem to have been a private dwelling and certainly could not have
housed all the people buried in the adjoining cemetery. The
natural inference seemed to be that the people who had used it
had lived in caves or tents in the vicinity. For what purpose they
had used the building was still not made clear, but it seemed likely
that it had served as a meeting place for the community, especially
if this was such a religious order as we find reflected in the Manual
of Discipline. In short, the excavation reversed the previous im¬
pression that the cave and the ruin were unconnected.
Meanwhile other evidence had been coming in unsought. To¬
ward the end of the summer Bedouins brought to Jerusalem two
fragments of leather inscribed with a few words in Hebrew and a
few words in Greek. The secretary of the Palestine Museum and
the Inspector of Antiquities visited the cave in which these frag¬
ments were believed to have been found, but it seemed unpromis¬
ing, and they could not be sure that this was actually the place
from which the fragments had come. It was evidently imperative,
however, that the region should be thoroughly explored. Awni Bey
Dajani, Inspector of the Department of Antiquities, invited the
American School of Oriental Research to join him in looking for
one of the caves that had been found by the Bedouins, and on the
third day of November, three weeks before the beginning of the
excavation of Khirbet Qumran, some of the members of the school
went with him and by strenuous walking and climbing located the
cave. They gathered a few samples of pottery but decided that
excavation would be necessary to accomplish anything further.
At the end of November some leather and papyrus fragments
were offered to de Vaux by an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem. He
claimed that they had been found in the first cave discovered in
1947,‘but this was obviously false. Being strictly questioned, he
admitted that the fragments had come from another place, but
quite near to the cave. He was evidently anxious to avoid an
investigation. De Vaux informed Harding, who purchased the
fragments from the merchant for the Palestine Museum.
More pieces of manuscripts continued to be brought in by the
Later Discoveries 57
Bedouins to the Department of Antiquities and the French School
of Archeology. Some of them were written on leather and some on
papyrus. Some were in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, and some in
Greek. Father de Vaux, with consummate tact and patience, ne¬
gotiated with the Bedouins in the hope of finding the source of
all this material. When he suggested working with them they said
that this would be impossible because the presence of a stranger
in the desert would attract the attention, of the police and spoil
everything.
Later, in the course of bargaining over the high price they asked
for one fragment, they protested that the place was very far away
and the work very difficult, and when de Vaux indicated some
skepticism on this point they told him that if he came with them
he could see for himself. They assured him that this could be
managed; they had sentries on the nearby heights who would
inform them if the police appeared, so that they could hide in the
caves. He suggested that he could get permission from the De¬
partment of Antiquities, and they need then have no fear of being
arrested. They heartily approved. He then suggested that the
Director of Antiquities might come with them, and they agreed to
this also. Finally he proposed a police escort, not to protect him
from them—was he not their brother?—but to protect them from
jealous tribesmen. This seemed to them an excellent idea.
All this, of course, took time, but on January 21, 1952, de Vaux
and Harding, with an experienced Arab foreman, a police officer
from Bethlehem, two soldiers, and two Bedouin guides, went to
the place where the Bedouins had been at work. This proved to be
a group of caves in the Wady Murabbaat, about ten or eleven
miles south of Khirbet Qumran. Accordingly the Department of
Antiquities and the French School of Archeology undertook an¬
other expedition together and worked for a total of six weeks dur¬
ing the first six months of 1952. This enterprise was rewarded by a
rich find of manuscript fragments and coins.
The most important new fact that emerged from the explora¬
tion and excavation in the Wady Murabbaat was that caves in the
slope of the Judean plateau had been used and inhabited not only
5 8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
at the time represented by the cave found in 1947 and the settle¬
ment at Khirbet Qumran, but also in later periods. Evidence of
occupation at various times was found, but most of the coins and
manuscript fragments were from the time just before and during
the second Jewish revolt against Rome (132-135 a . d .). One of the
contracts written in Greek, of which there were several, was dated
in the seventh year of the Emperor Hadrian, corresponding to
124 a . d . Among the fragments there were only a few brief bits of
books of the Bible, including some from Genesis and Exodus, one
from Deuteronomy, and one from Isaiah, Interesting for the history
of Jewish religious practices was a complete phylactery.
Some of these texts afford new and important, though scanty,
source material for the history of the second revolt. Among them
are several that mention by name the leader of the revolt, com¬
monly known as Bar Kokhba (or Cocheba), that is “Son of the
Star,” who was believed by some of his contemporaries to be the
“Star out of Jacob” predicted in Numbers 24:17. His enemies
sometimes called him Bar Kozebah, “Son of the Lie.” In the Wady
Murabbaat texts he is called Simon ben Kosebah, and this has
revived discussion among scholars concerning the original form
and meaning of his name.
One text, of which several incomplete copies were found, was
dated by "the deliverance of Israel by the hand of Simon ben
Kosebah.” There are even two letters bearing his name and be¬
lieved by the excavators to be original letters from him in person.
The officer to whom they were addressed was named Yeshua (that
is, Jesus) ben Galgola. There was also a letter to the same man
from two officials of a Jewish community. Two contracts and a few
other documents in Greek bearing definite dates in the second
century a.d., together with a few small fragments in Latin, suggest
that after the suppression of the Jewish revolt a Roman garrison
held the place for some time.
Exciting as these discoveries were, the archeologists were given
little time to study the new material before another expedition
proved necessary. The Taamirah Bedouins had by now become
such ardent seekers of manuscripts that reports of new finds in
Later Discoveries 59
other caves kept coming in. To forestall such unauthorized opera¬
tions, and also to get as much work done as possible before the sea¬
son of intolerable heat and malaria, a joint expedition of the French
School 6f Archeology, the Palestine Museum, and the American
School of Oriental Research was undertaken in March. The
Bedouins had found manuscript fragments in a cave only about
a hundred yards from the one in which the first manuscripts had
been discovered, and in another somewhat farther to the south
they had found a complete jar and lid like those in which the manu¬
scripts discovered in 1947 had been kept. Two lots of the newly
found manuscript fragments were bought by the French School
and the Palestine Museum horn an antiquities dealer in Bethlehem.
The new expedition, which was entitled the Qumran Caves
Expedition, engaged therefore in a thorough search of the area
surrounding the Wady Qumran. Father de Vaux and Professor
William L. Reed of Texas Christian University, who was serving
that year as Director of the American School of Oriental Research
at Jerusalem, directed the enterprise. Their staff consisted of
Fathers Barth&emy and Milik and M. Henri de Contenson of the
French School of Archeology. There were also two foremen from
the Palestine Museum and one from Amman, who supervised the
work of a number of Taamirah Bedouins.
After a preliminary visit on March 6, the systematic exploration
was begun on March 10 and continued until the twenty-ninth. The
whole region within a radius of about five miles in each direction
from Khirbet Qumran was carefully examined. The area was
divided into sectors, each of which was assigned to a small crew of
workmen under the direction of a member of the expedition. With
their Arab workers, the directors and staff scrambled over the
valleys and cliffs, using rope ladders where necessary.
Something like forty caves or crevices in the rock, most of them
too small to serve for anything but storage, were found to contain
pottery and other objects. In twenty-five of them there was pottery
of the same type as that from the cave found in 1947. All of these
twenty-five caves were in the lower of two stages of a limestone
cliff, which rises to the west of the marly terrace just back of the
60 The Dead Sea Scrolls
coastal plain. The most dense occupation was found to have been
near the mouth of the Wady Qumran, where the water supply was
relatively good and access to the headquarters of the community
was most convenient. Traces of two roads, at some points crudely
paved and supported by walls, were discovered.
In two caves, one of them found by the Bedouins and the other
newly discovered by the expedition, manuscript fragments were
found. These included another bit of the book of Leviticus written
in the archaic "Phoenician” script, and pieces of two manuscripts
of Exodus, two of Ruth, and one each of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Psalms. There were also non-biblical texts in Hebrew and Aramaic.
Quite unique were two scrolls of copper, one of them consisting
of two sheets rolled up together. The length of each rolled-up
scroll, which would be the width of the unrolled strips, was about
a foot. By counting the convolutions at the ends it was possible
to tell that each strip was about 32 inches long. The three strips
had originally been riveted end to end; the complete scroll, there¬
fore, had been approximately 8 feet long. The material was much
too oxidized and brittle to permit the unrolling of the scrolls
without protracted treatment by some chemical process not yet
fully worked out.
The text was inscribed so deeply that it stood out in relief on
the back. A few characters could therefore be read in reverse on
the outside of the scrolls. They belonged to the "square” Hebrew
alphabet employed in most of the manuscripts, but not enough
letters were legible to indicate the nature of the contents. Father
de Vaux was convinced that the text was not from the Bible. He
suggested that it was probably a rule or ordinance posted in the
central building at Kh i r bet Qumran. One is reminded of the ref¬
erences in I Maccabees to proclamations and notices inscribed on
bronze tablets and posted in public places. The historians Josephus
and Polybius also speak of this practice.
About a year after the discovery of these scrolls JC G. Kuhn ex¬
amined them at the Palestine Museum, deciphered what be could
of the writing visible in reverse on the back, and conceived the
hypothesis that the scrolls were a record of the community’s
Later Discoveries 81
treasures and the places where they were buried when the settle¬
ment was abandoned. Whether this will be verified when the
scrolls can be unrolled remains to be seen. If so, an exciting
treasure-hunt will no doubt ensue, and careful measures for
security will be necessary. No doubt the scrolls themselves will
be carefully guarded in the meantime.
Still the eager Taamirah tribesmen continued to scour the dis¬
trict, and still with amazing success. New fragments of manu¬
scripts kept coming in and were bought by the Palestine Museum
and the Jordan government. A large quantity of relatively late
manuscript material was found in a cave in the Wady en-Nar, the
southwestern continuation of the Kedron Valley, in which the
famous monastery of Mar Saba is located. Among the manuscripts
found in this cave or its vicinity were Arabic papyri from the early
centuries of Islam. There were also Greek manuscripts of the
Gospels of Mark and John, the Acts of the Apostles, and the
apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. These came from the same
general period or slightly earlier (fifth to eighth centuries a.d.).
Manuscripts of non-biblical writings in Greek and biblical manu¬
scripts in Syriac were represented among the fragments, which
included also a letter written in the Syriac language on papy¬
rus.
From a group of caves whose location was not definitely iden¬
tified came another lot of manuscript material related in contents
and date to those found previously in the Wady Murabbaat. It
included a few fragments from the books of Genesis, Numbers, and
Psalms. There was also another phylactery. There was a letter
addressed to the leader of the second Jewish revolt, Simon ben
Kosebah. Two Aramaic contracts were dated in the third year of
the "liberation of Israel” by the same leader. Two other Aramaic
documents and two in Greek were dated according to the era of the
Roman province of Arabia. A group of papyri in the Nabatean
dialect affords important matter for the study of Semitic lan¬
guages, Aramaic in particular, because these papyri provide more
extensive and continuous texts than the inscriptions on which our
knowledge of this dialect has depended hitherto. Especially in-
0 * The Dead Sea ScroUs
leresting to biblical scholars was a fragmentary column from a
Greek manuscript of the book of Habakkuk, affording what Father
Barth&emy has called a missing link in the history of the Sep-
tuagint.
Our major concern here, however, is the manuscripts of the Wady
Qumran. In a cave hardly large enough to deserve the name, not
far from the Khirbet Qumran, more fragments were found by
the Bedouins. Among these was one containing a passage of the
Damascus Document. As I have already remarked, this work is
closely related to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The presence of even a
small bit of it among the other Qumran texts proves that the
Damascus Document is not, as some have maintained, a medieval
composition. Other fragments, as a matter of fact, were found
later.
The climax of the whole extraordinary series of discoveries was
reached at an out-of-the-way spot in the plateau on which Khirbet
Qumran stands. This plateau is cut by a ravine, and at the point
where the ravine joins the Wady Qumran the Bedouins found a
chamber, hollowed out of the soft marl, containing many fragments
of manuscripts. This is the cave now known as 4Q—i.e., Cave
No. 4 of the Wady Qumran. Immediately on receiving the news
of its discovery the Department of Antiquities stopped the
Bedouins, and a fourth expedition was dispatched to excavate this
cave, again in cooperation with the French School of Archeology
and the Palestine Museum.
A week’s work, beginning September 22, 1952, sufficed to com¬
plete the work begun by the Bedouins. The combined results of
the unauthorized and the authorized excavations yielded a large
quantity of manuscript material, surpassing in interest, according
to the judgment of the excavators, even the initial discovery erf
1947. In addition to the chamber that had been found by the
Bedouins, the expedition found also another containing manu¬
script fragments, but these were not as well preserved as the
others.
The preliminary task of identifying and cataloguing the con¬
tents of all these texts is being industriously pursued by the De-
Later Discoveries 63
partment of Antiquities and the Dominicans with the assistance of
the American School of Oriental Research. Not all of the fragments
by any means have yet been identified, but it has already been
determined that at least sixty different manuscripts are represented
in the fragments from Cave 4Q alone. Perhaps as many as a
hundred different biblical manuscripts may be counted when the
scrolls and fragments from all the caves are included.
Almost all, if not all, of the books of the Old Testament are
among the writings thus far .identified. The Pentateuch and Isaiah
are most largely represented, but there are also many fragments
of Psalms, Daniel, and Jeremiah. There are also commentaries on
the Psalms, Isaiah, and some of the minor prophets. There are
sectarian hymns like Sukenik’s Thanksgiving Psalms, bits of the
Manual of Discipline, both in the same text as that of Archbishop
Samuel’s scroll and also in another text of an earlier type. There
is something belonging or related to the War of the Sons of Light
with the Sons of Darkness. The apocryphal book of Tobit appears
in both Hebrew and Aramaic fragments. The Damascus Docu¬
ment, several apocalyptic writings, and other works previously
unknown are represented also. All of these writings, used, if not
composed, by members of the group that occupied the region,
demonstrate the amazing Intensity and scope of their interest
in religious literature.
On October 4, a few days after the conclusion of this excavation,
the American School of Oriental Research gave a large tea party,
and Father de Vaux was among the guests. Dr. A. D. Tushingham,
who had meanwhile succeeded Professor Reed as Director of the
school, had just returned with other members of the school from
a trip of two weeks in Syria. Father de Vaux took the opportunity
to tell him of the new discoveries and urged upon him the need
of further exploration before it should be too late. In spite of weari¬
ness from their long trip and the demands of other duties. Dr.
Tushingham and the two Fellows of the school, Neil Richardson
and Gus Van Beek, rose to the occasion and set out the next morn¬
ing with Father Milik of the French School and Yusif Saad of the
Palestine Museum. Unfortunately their zeal was not rewarded.
6 4 The Dead Sea Scrolls
The experience of making one discovery after another was not
repeated this time.
Meanwhile the government of Jordan was having the area pa¬
trolled to check further unauthorized and unsupervised digging.
A liberal amount of money was appropriated also for the purchase
of everything brought in by Bedouins, so that no important ma¬
terial might be lost. There was no telling what valuable manu¬
scripts might still be in the hands of the Bedouins or what might
still be found, in spite of every precaution.
And now another group joined in the quest. The Belgian Colonel
(formerly Captain) Philippe Lippens, who in the winter of
1948-49 had taken a leading part in the search for the first cave,
had not in the meantime lost his interest. Now a professor at the
University of Louvain, he joined his colleague, Professor R. de
Langhe, in organizing and conducting a Belgian expedition for a
campaign of excavation, which lasted from February to May of
the year 1953. The site chosen was one named Khirbet Mird, the
ruins of a Byzantine monastery about two and a half miles north¬
east of the monastery of Mar Saba in the Wady en-Nar. On the
top of a mountain shaped like a truncated cone are the remains
of hermits’ cells, reservoirs, and an aqueduct, the tumbled walls
and mosaic pavement of a church, and a number of tombs. Manu¬
script fragments were found here, both by Bedouins and by the
Belgian scholars, including bits of Greek and Syriac manuscripts
of Old and New Testament books and Christian ritual texts, all
from the fifth to eighth centuries a.d., as well as Arabic fragments
and a few bits of Aramaic. In fact, the excavators were convinced
that the fragments found by Bedouins the previous summer in die
Wady en-Nar had come not from a cave but from Khirbet Mird.
Harding and de Vaux also directed another season’s work at
Khirbet Qumran from February 9 to April 24, 1953, obtaining
further information concerning the history of the site and the
people who occupied it, and correcting some of their own previous
conclusions. The greater part of the ruin was uncovered, and it
was found to have had three periods of occupation. The first of
these had been ended by an earthquake.
Later Discoveries 65
Coins of John Hyrcanus ( 135-104 b . c .) and Alexander Janneus
(103-76 b.c. ), with three of the Seleucid King Antiochus VII
(138-129 b.c. ), showed that the occupation had begun much ear¬
lier than the 1951 excavation indicated, and the first period of
occupation had been much more important than was then sup¬
posed. The pottery in this level and in a deposit about 30 meters
north of the budding (apparently left when the building was
cleared out before being restored in the next period) was all of a
type found in levels belonging to the late Hellenistic period at
Beth-zur and in the citadel at Jerusalem.
Other coins indicated that the first period of occupation had
continued to about the end of the Hasmonean period (39 b.c.)
or the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 b.c. ). Josephus tells us of a
severe earthquake in the seventh year of Herod, just before the
naval battle of Actium in which Antony and Cleopatra were de¬
cisively defeated by Octavius. On the very plausible assumption
that this was the earthquake that destroyed the building at Qum-
ran, de Vaux believes that the end of the first period can be defi¬
nitely dated in the spring of 31 b.c. Other recorded earthquakes
in the same general period were either too early or too late to fit
the evidence of the coins.
The building, which had two stories, was erected certainly not
later than the reign of Alexander Janneus (103-76 b.c.), and per¬
haps in the reign of his brother Aristobulus (104-103 b.c.) or his
father John Hyrcanus (135-104 b.c.). At the northwest corner it
had a strong tower with thick walls, evidently intended for de¬
fense. In its basement were rooms for storage. In the southwest
comer of the building were large rooms for meetings or meals,
and in the northwest comer what seemed to be a large kitchen.
Only one coin of Herod was found, and one of the city of Tyre
from the year 29 b.c. From the time of Herod’s son Archelaus (4
b.c.—6 a.d.) the coins again became more numerous and continued
so to the time of the first Jewish revolt (68-70 a.d.), after which
there was another and longer gap. These facts indicate that the
building was not rebuilt immediately after being destroyed by the
earthquake of 31 b.c., but was probably restored in the time of
60 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Archelaus and continued in use until it was violently destroyed
during the first revolt. It must have been restored by the same
group, however, that had occupied it before, because the same
general plan and manner of use were continued.
The pottery of the second period of occupation corresponded
to what had been found in the excavation of 1951. It was related
to the pottery of the first level but showed some further develop¬
ment, resembling most closely what had been found elsewhere in
tombs of the time of Herod. The fact that the first two levels could
not be distinguished in the 1951 excavation had led to an unduly
late dating of the earliest pottery, in accordance with the later
forms and the coins of the first century a.d., which actually be¬
longed to the second period. It is the pottery of this second period
that corresponds with what was found in the first cave, which
therefore, as de Vaux informs me, “is certainly homogeneous and
dates from the first half of the first century a.d.”
As has been said, the general plan of the building was not
changed in the second period, though there were minor modifica¬
tions in the interest of greater isolation and security. The room
in the southwest comer with a bench along the walls still seemed
to have been intended for common meals or general meetings. A
still larger room adjoining it on the east might have served for
meetings or worship, but there were no objects to indicate how
these rooms on the ground floor were used.
From the upper story, however, came portions of what proved,
when carefully assembled at the Palestine Museum, to have been
a brick table about 16 feet long and about 20 inches high, with
parts of two shorter tables also. The room seemed rather too far
from the kitchen to have been a dining room. Moreover, a bronze
inkstand and one of clay, one of them still having some dried ink
in it, were found in the same room. Another inkstand was found
in another room. All this pointed to the conclusion that this had
been the scriptorium of the order, where the manuscripts were
written.
The manuscripts of the whole Wady Qumran area, with the
exception of any the first settlers may have brought with them.
Later Discoveries 67
came from these first two periods of occupation at Khirbet Qum-
ran. Two fragments found in caves at some distance from each
other were found to have been written by the same scribe. A
few of the potsherds found in the excavation of the building bear
Hebrew writing in the same form of the alphabet as that of the
manuscripts, a form clearly earlier than the script of the Wady
Murabbaat and the Wady en-Nar manuscripts. One potsherd from
the first level at Khirbet Qumran had the Hebrew alphabet rather
crudely written on it. Presumably it shows the efforts of a student
practicing to become one of the scribes who copied the manu¬
scripts.
Ashes and iron arrowheads show that the second period of occu¬
pation came to a violent end. Josephus again helps us to fix the
date when this happened. He says that Vespasian was at Jericho
in June of 69 a . d . and left a garrison there. Perhaps, as de Vaux
infers, a part of this garrison, which belonged to the famous 10th
Legion, attacked and destroyed the building at Qumran at that
time and occupied the ruin as a post for watching and guarding
the shore of the Dead Sea. A coin of Vespasian from the year 70,
two of the city of Ascalon from the years 72-73. t^ee of Judaea
capta from the reign of Titus (79-81). and one of Agrippa II from
about the year 88 were found in the excavation and had probably
been left by the Roman garrison.
From the third period of occupation there was very little pottery,
and what there was came from the beginning of the period, close
to the time when the building had been destroyed. In this period
the building was no longer such as to serve the needs of an or¬
ganized community, but only those of a small military guard.
Some time after the Roman soldiers left, the ruin was apparently
occupied for a while by Jewish rebels, who no doubt left the
thirteen coins of the second revolt (132-135 a.d. ) that were found.
Five later coins and the bits of Arab pottery that in 1951 were
thought to indicate a later reoccupation proved to be too few to
indicate anything more than the presence of a few shepherds
camping there overnight
A third campaign of excavation was carried out from February
68 The Dead Sea Scrolls
15 to April 15,1954. Only a brief summary of the results has been
published thus far, but in general the conclusions indicated by
the previous year’s work were confirmed. The large building was
found to extend farther to the south than had been supposed. The
remains of an industrial quarter, with elaborate arrangements for
assuring an adequate supply of water, were uncovered.
A large hall more than 70 feet long was cleared. It had un¬
doubtedly been used for meetings and perhaps for sacred meals.
In a small adjoining room there was a large collection of pottery,
neatly arranged according to the various kinds of vessels, like the
dishes in a china-closet.
Evidence that these vessels were of local manufacture was af¬
forded by what de Vaux describes as the most complete and best
preserved potter’s establishment ever excavated in Palestine. At
the opposite end of the excavation was found a mill, with its mill¬
stones nearby.
The evidence of the coins for the dates of occupation in the three
successive periods remained the same as before. Further indica¬
tions of the earthquake that terminated the first period were
found, and also further evidence of the Roman occupation in the
third period.
One quite new discovery was made. Potsherds of the eighth
and seventh centuries b.c. showed that there had been a pre-exilic
Israelite settlement at this place. One sherd had written on it a
few letters in the “Phoenician” alphabet. No remains of buildings
from this early occupation had survived. There was of course no
connection between it and the occupation by the covenanters; a
lapse of several centuries, in fact, intervened between the two
occupations.
On February 1,1955, Father de Vaux wrote to me: "We leave
tomorrow for a new campaign at the Khirbeh. We must clear the
surroundings of the main building to the west and a little building
half carried away by the erosion of the wady. I do not expect any
sensational discoveries in this area of secondary importance. We
shall stop about the first of April (I do not know whether we shall
be able to finish the whole exploration or whether we shall have
Later Discoveries 69
to come back again the next year).” On March 29 he wrote: “Our
excavation at Khirbet Qumran will be finished in a dozen days.
It has been very interesting and will add much to the history and
the knowledge of the life of the community ”
Meanwhile the fragments assembled at the Palestine Museum
are being diligently examined. Frank M. Cross, Jr., has written a
vivid account of this work. The fragments must first be softened,
and placed between glass plates to flatten them. They must then
be cleaned very carefully, because the ink may come away with
the clay. Some fragments are so brittle that they crumble even
when touched with a soft camel’s-hair brush. In some cases a
light application of castor oil helps to bring out the writing, but
this too must be done with great care lest the material itself be
discolored. Infra-red photography helps in many cases to bring
out writing otherwise illegible. When flattened and cleaned, the
fragments must be sorted out and, if possible, pieced together.
If they belong to books of the Bible or other known works, the
identification is relatively easy with the aid of concordances. Oc¬
casional surprising discoveries keep up the interest of this trying
task.
The acquisition of Archbishop Samuel’s manuscripts by Israel
has already been mentioned. It is to be hoped that the Israeli
scholars will be able to open the Lamech Scroll and publish the
text, so far as it can still be deciphered, in the near future.
On May 22, 1954, it was announced that a substantial part of
the manuscript fragments from Cave 4 had been purchased by
McGill University of Montreal for $15,000. A condition of the pur¬
chase is that they are to remain at the Palestine Museum for study
and to be published in the same series with the other fragments.
It is expected that this will take about two years. It is reported that
other material has been purchased on the same basis by the Uni¬
versity of Manchester in England.
Thus far the work has continued to the time of this writing. It
is certainly not finished. The only fit conclusion for this chapter
seems to be the words “to be continued.”
PART TWO
THE AGE OF THE MANUSCRIPTS
IV
The Evidence oj Archeology
and Paleography
xjTjinnnTUTrinjmnJTruiJ^^
The most important question about an ancient document is not
when it was written but what it means, and what historical or
other significance it has. A book is not necessarily important be¬
cause it is old, or unimportant because it is more recent. In our
day, indeed, it is more commonly assumed that the latest book is
the most important, but that too is a precarious assumption. Age
and value are quite different matters, and neither necessarily de¬
pends upon the other. This should be obvious, but it has not al¬
ways been remembered. There is some justice in the complaint
that thus far the debate about the Dead Sea Scrolls has been
too much preoccupied with the question of their age.
At the same time the interpretation of the texts cannot be com¬
pletely separated from the question of their date. Particularly
when we deal with the historical significance of a text, we cannot
evade the question for what time in history it is significant. To use
medieval documents as primary sources for pre-Christian Judaism
would be like using one of President Eisenhower’s messages to
Congress as evidence of conditions in the time of George Wash¬
ington.
When we are dealing with an ancient work preserved in one
or more manuscripts, the question of the time when the book was
composed depends in part on the age of the oldest surviving copy.
73
74 The Dead Sea Scrolls
The manuscript may have been written much later than the
original composition of the text it contains; it may be only the last
of a long series of copies. But it cannot be older than its contents.
If we can date the manuscript, we have at least the latest possible
date to which the author and his work can be assigned. If it can
be definitely proved, for instance, that the scroll containing the
Habakkuk Commentary was made in the first century a.d. or
earlier, we can be sure that the Habakkuk Commentary itself is
not a medieval composition. Before discussing the question of the
time when each work was originally written, we shall therefore
consider the age of the manuscripts found in the caves of Qumran.
Anyone who has read the foregoing chapters knows already that
even specialists do not agree as to the antiquity of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. Some of the arguments for their divergent views have ap¬
peared incidentally in the course of our narrative. Clearly some¬
body must be wrong. All the evidence, if complete and interpreted
rightly, would converge upon the one and only true conclusion,
making it so clear and certain that there could be no disagreement
The evidence is actually not complete, and its interpretation is at
many points not at all certain. The fact that many different kinds
of evidence are involved makes the situation all the more con¬
fusing. There is still, therefore, room for considerable variety of
opinion.
Some of the ideas that have been put forward, however, have
been definitely disproved and should by this time be discarded.
The range of possibilities has been narrowed, and the range of
probabilities is narrower still. To see clearly how the matter now
stands we must review all the kinds of evidence and lines of argu¬
ment appealed to by scholars who have seriously studied the prob¬
lem.
Not only must the time when the manuscripts were made be
distinguished from the time when the books contained in them
were composed; we must also distinguish the time when the
manuscripts were made from the time when they were left in
the caves. Some of them are obviously much older than others.
Some were probably quite new when the caves were abandoned;
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 75
others were already old. In other words, the time when each
manuscript was left in one of the caves may have been much
later but was certainly not earlier than the time when it was writ¬
ten. If the abandonment of the caves can be dated, we shall there¬
fore have the latest possible date for the most recent of the manu¬
scripts.
Our first question, then, is when the manuscripts were left in
the caves. This is tied up to some degree with the question of why
they were put there in the first place. For some time after the dis¬
covery of the first cave there was a good deal of disagreement
Sukenik contended from the beginning that the scrolls had been
placed in jars and hidden in the caves, not because they were
highly valued, but because they were considered unfit to be used.
The St. Mark's Isaiah manuscript, in particular, differed to such
a degree from the standard text that, according to this view, it
had to be abandoned. Such scrolls could not lawfully be destroyed.
The common custom was to set them aside in a place called a
genizah (from the Hebrew verb ganaz, to hide). From time to
time the scrolls accumulated in the genizah were taken out and
ceremonially buried. Sukenik held that the cave was such a gen¬
izah.
Supporting this theory, Henri Del Medico observed that the
scrolls had been wrapped up in linen like mummies—“they were
dead books.” According to rabbinic regulations, not only defective
copies of the sacred books but also works pronounced apocryphal
by the religious authorities were relegated to the genizah. Both
kinds of manuscripts were included among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Del Medico called attention to two particular efforts during the
Roman period to gather up and dispose of unorthodox books. In
the years just preceding the first Jewish revolt against Rome, in the
first century a.d., false prophets were inciting the people to reck¬
less violence by proclaiming that the divine deliverance of Israel
was at hand. To allay the excitement and disorder Rabbi Simon
ben Gamliel, son and successor of Gamliel I (the Gamaliel of
Acts 5:34), sent men throughout the country to gather up all the
writings of the false prophets and hide them in a secret place. This,
yS The Dead Sea Scrolls
Del Medico suggested, might have been the occasion of the first
deposit of manuscripts in the cave near Khirbet Qumran. The cap¬
ture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple by the Ro¬
mans in 70 a . d . was followed by the appearance of a new body of
apocryphal literature, and Rabbi Gamhel II (about 92-100 a . d .)
endeavored to confiscate these dangerous books. Most of the
apocryphal texts found in the cave, said Del Medico, must have
been put there at this time.
Against the idea of a genizah it was argued that manuscripts
were ordinarily put in a genizah one or two at a time and later
solemnly buried, but the manuscripts in the cave, carefully
wrapped and packed in jars with covers to protect the contents
from dampness, must have formed an extensive library, which
was hidden in an hour of danger—not to dispose of it but to pre¬
serve it. Del Medico's idea that the scrolls were put in the cave
on one or two particular occasions implies something rather differ¬
ent from an ordinary genizah; and the great care taken for the
preservation of the manuscripts is hardly explained by his allu¬
sion to mummies.
Sukenik too, while insisting that the collection of manuscripts
was a genizah, assumed that it was put in the cave on a particular
oc ca sion. He identified this with the migration to “the land of
Damascus” mentioned in the Damascus Document, which is so
called because of its references to this migration and to the new
covenant which it says was made in the land of Damascus. Suke-
nik’s view was that before leaving Judea the group discarded all
of its manuscripts that were worn out, damaged, or in any way
defective.
Sukenik and Del Medico were almost alone in considering the
deposit of manuscripts a genizah. Most of the other writers who
discussed the matter agreed with the excavators of the cave that
the scrolls had been hidden to preserve them in a time of danger,
when the group that used them was scattered by war or persecu¬
tion, or perhaps compelled to emigrate in a body under circum¬
stances that prevented them from taking their library with them.
This hypothesis also, however, made use of the migration to the
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 77
land of Damascus, which Sukenik supposed to be the occasion for
using the cave as a genizah. Unfortunately we do not know when
that migration occurred, if it occurred at all. Even scholars who
believe that there was such a migration do not all agree that the
scrolls were hidden at that time.
The whole question was placed in a new light by the discovery
of the other caves and the excavation of the building at Khirbet
Qumran. The large quantity of manuscripts represented by the
fragments found in a number of caves showed that there must
have been a library containing hundreds of manuscripts, with
several copies of some of the books. Apparently the collection was
broken up and placed in different caves for safekeeping when the
community was forced to abandon the settlement of which the
building at Khirbet Qumran was the center. The copper scrolls
found in one of the caves testified even more forcibly than the
manuscripts to the hasty abandonment of the place. Containing a
long continuous inscription, which had presumably been affixed
to a wall of the central building, they had been taken down, sepa¬
rately rolled up in two portions, and hidden in a cave about a mile
and a quarter away.
The time when the caves and the manuscripts in them were
abandoned can be determined only by archeological evidence.
What, then, is the archeological evidence concerning the occupa¬
tion and abandonment of the caves, and how conclusive is it? This
may seem to be a somewhat embarrassing question for the arche¬
ologists, because their first conclusions were later found to be mis¬
taken. What proved them wrong, however, was more archeological
evidence, and it was the archeologists themselves who recognized
and corrected the mistake.
Archeological evidence, as far as it goes, is the most solid and
certain of all kinds of evidence for the reconstruction of past his¬
tory. It consists of objective and undeniable facts. It may be and
often is incomplete. Solid facts must then be supplemented by con¬
jectures to provide even a hypothetical interpretation. The arche¬
ologist, however, knows what is fact and what is conjecture and
recognizes the tentative nature of his interpretation.
yS The Dead Sea Scrolls
The archeological evidence from the excavation of the first cave
in 1949 consisted almost entirely of pottery. When coins and dated
documents or inscriptions are lacking, pottery is the archeologist s
chief criterion for determining when the site he is excavating was
occupied. Vessels made of pottery, whole or more often smashed
to bits, are found in abundance at all ancient sites except those
from the very earliest ages. Systematic comparison of the results
of many excavations enables archeologists to work out the succes¬
sion of fashions in the forms, decoration, and material of pottery in
each part of the ancient world.
Relying on this comparative “ceramic index” of chronology, the
most competent experts in ancient Palestinian pottery were at
first unanimous in pronouncing the jars found with the Dead Sea
Scrolls “Hellenistic” or at least “pre-Herodian"—in other words,
from the second century or the early first century B.c. Jars very
much like them, though not exactly the same, had been found
elsewhere, particularly at Beth-zur, together with coins of the
Hellenistic period. The museum at Turin possesses two jars of
similar fonn from Egypt, which contained papyri of the second
century b.c.
The jars in the cave were all of the same general type. There
was no indication of transition from one type to another or of the
introduction of new types. Everything pointed to the same period,
with the exception of the small quantity of Roman pottery, which
the excavators then supposed to have been left by later intruders.
Just what was the relation between the jars and the manuscripts,
of course, was not certain. There was much discussion on this
point. Most of the debate took place before the excavation of
Khirbet Qumran and the finding of other caves containing manu¬
scripts, and consequently many arguments that seemed logical
enough at the time were refuted by the later discoveries. Very
few scholars seriously doubted that the manuscripts had actually
been found in the jars, but there was much diversity of opinion con¬
cerning the relative antiquity of the jars and the scrolls. Because
of the unusual shape and size of the jars—nearly 2 feet high and
about 10 inches in diameter—some scholars supposed that they
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 79
had been made for the express purpose of containing the scrolls.
It was suggested that in a time of peril, when the manuscripts
had to be hidden, the jars may have been made within a few days,
as containers for them. Against this it was argued that in such an
emergency men would not have lingered to design special con¬
tainers and wait to have them made. But, said others, the emer¬
gency might have been foreseen before it became urgent.
Not all agreed that the jars and manuscripts came from the
same period. Some said that even if the jars were made in the
Hellenistic period, the manuscripts might have been written much
later. Bandits in the days of Herod, or even warriors of the Macca-
bean period, might have used the jars for food and drink or to
hold some of their booty, and then left them in the cave, where
they were later found useful for storing the manuscripts. Some of
the manuscript fragments in the cave, it was suggested, might
have been the remains of older scrolls previously kept in the jars
but later discarded and replaced by new manuscripts.
Even if the jars were made to contain scrolls, said one scholar,
they might have served this purpose for centuries in a school or
synagogue library. Worn-out manuscripts would then have been
replaced from time to time by new ones. It was equally possible,
of course, as many recognized, that some if not all of the manu¬
scripts might have been much older than the jars. If the jars be¬
longed to a library, some of its books might have been very old.
A few writers were never convinced that the jars were made
in the Hellenistic period. Changes of style, it was pointed out,
might have proceeded more slowly in remote areas, and the period
of transition from Hellenistic to Roman types might have been of
considerable duration. In that case the small amount of Roman
pottery found with the jars might not be, as was supposed, a
later intrusion. It might show merely that the Hellenistic culture
had not yet been wholly superseded by the Roman culture in this
region. Even if the jars were much older, indeed, the presence of
Roman pottery with them might indicate only that the jars and
manuscripts, after being long kept elsewhere, were moved to the
cave in the Roman period.
80 The Dead Sea Scrolls
At this point there was some confusion. The preliminary report
of the excavation of the first cave, mentioning the handful of
Roman sherds, dated them in the late second or early third cen¬
tury a.d. The first sounding at Khirbet Qumran in 1949 indicated
an occupation of that site in the third or fourth century. It seemed
reasonable to infer that the cave had been in use and the manu¬
scripts had been placed in it during the third or fourth century,
even though the manuscripts themselves and the jars containing
them may have been much older.
When Khirbet Qumran was more fully excavated in 1951, Ro¬
man pottery of the same type and jars like those from the cave
were found associated with coins attesting an occupation from
the reign of Augustus (31 B.C.-14 a.d.) to the first Jewish revolt
(6B-70 a.d. ) . Other jars of the same type were later found, together
with Roman pottery, in some of the other caves. When one of the
jars was acquired by the Walters Art Gallery of Baltimore, Albright
examined it and wrote to de Vaux that the “paste” or composition
of the clay was “definitely Roman.” By all these facts de Vaux
was convinced that the jars themselves were not Hellenistic but
Roman.
But if the jars were of later origin than had been supposed, the
Roman pottery in the cave was earlier, not from the third or fourth
century but from the first. The assumption of a later intrusion was
thus rendered unnecessary, and the archeological evidence, rein¬
terpreted in the light of more archeological evidence, was found
to support the conclusion that the manuscripts had been deposited
in the cave during the first two-thirds of the first century a.d.
Father de Vaux so reported to the Acad6mie des Inscriptions et
Belles Lettres on April 4, 1952, adding, however, that the manu¬
scripts were older than the pottery, and the texts copied in them
were still older.
Archeological material of a different kind affords another means
of dating the deposit of the manuscripts in the caves, though only
within a range of time even wider than that indicated by the
pottery. The first manuscripts discovered were wrapped in badly
decomposed cloth, and innumerable scraps of the same material
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 81
were found in the cave when it was excavated. Like the jars, the
cloth wrappings may have been younger or older than the manu¬
scripts, though it would seem more natural to wrap an old manu¬
script in new cloth than to wrap a new one in a very old piece of
cloth. When Harding took the manuscript fragments from the first
cave to England, in the summer of 1949, he took also some of the
cloth and asked Mrs. G. M. Crowfoot to examine it. Another box
full of pieces was later sent to her from Jordan. A microscopic ex¬
amination of the fiber was undertaken by Major G. O. Searle of
H. M. Norfolk Flax Establishment, who ascertained definitely that
the cloth was linen.
According to Sukenik, the Bedouins who found the first scrolls
threw out the linen wrappings because of the bad smell. Mrs.
Crowfoot reported that when her first box of pieces was opened
it emitted an odor "like that of an ancient Egyptian tomb.” As
far as the rottenness of the pieces permitted, she cleaned them
carefully, mounted many of them, and studied the weaving tech¬
nique and decorations. She concluded that the linen was of Pales¬
tinian manufacture, and that the wrappings of the scrolls were
made especially for this use. Her examination, however, led to
no definite conclusions concerning the age of the linen. Another
piece from the cave was brought to the United States by Professor
O. R. Sellers and examined by Miss Louisa Bellinger of Dumbarton
Oaks and the Textile Museum at Washington. Her report also in¬
dicated that the linen was a native Palestinian product, and an¬
cient, but that nothing more specific could be said concerning its
date.
On this point more definite evidence was secured through the
carbon-14 process, mentioned earlier, which, by measuring the
rate of carbon-14 disintegration of a piece of organic material, can
determine its age within a margin of error of about 5 to 10 per
cent. Since this involves the destruction of the material, the proc¬
ess cannot be directly applied to the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves.
The cloth in which they were wrapped, however, is not so precious
as to preclude the sacrifice of some of it in such a good cause.
Professor J. L. Kelso, Director of the American School of Ori-
Sa The Dead Sea Scrolls
ental Research at Jerusalem for the year i 949 “ 5 °> brought back to
America on his return a piece of the linen Harding had provided for
the purpose of the test. As I have said, this was subjected to the
carbon -j 4 process by W.F. Libby of the Institute of Nuclear
Studies of the University of Chicago, one of the pioneers in the
development of the process. His measurement showed that the
piece of linen submitted to him late in the year 1950 was then
1917 years old, plus or minus 200 years; that is, it was made within
200 years of 33 a.d., or between 167 b.c. and 233 a.d. While this
does not afford a precise date, it supports the other evidence to the
extent of establishing a general period within which the linen
wrappings of the scrolls were made.
Our first question is now answered. The scrolls found in the
caves of the Wady Qumran were undoubtedly left there when the
central building was destroyed and the neighborhood was aban¬
doned. As our account of the excavations has shown, this was dur¬
ing the war of 66-70 a.d., quite possibly in the spring of 68. How
long the manuscripts had been in the caves at that time is less
certain, but de Vaux may well be right in believing that they were
hidden at the time when the necessity of abandoning the settle¬
ment was imminent.
If the latest of the manuscripts must have been written before
70 a.d., our next question is how long before that they were writ¬
ten. The answer to this must of course be in terms of a somewhat
protracted period, because the manuscripts were not all made at
the same time. The fact that one of the rooms in the main building
at Khirbet Qumran was evidently a scriptorium indicates that
many of the manuscripts were written there during the two major
periods of the occupation of the site. This would carry some of
them back as far as the reign of Alexander Jarrneus at the beginning
of the last century before Christ, or possibly twenty or thirty years
earlier, to the reign of John Hyrcanus. The adjacent cemetery,
with its more than a thousand graves, was evidently used during
the same time. The first occupation of the site, however, does not
fix the earliest possible date for the oldest manuscripts. They were
not all necessarily written in this scriptorium. Some of them may
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 83
have been brought to this place when the community was first
established there, and they may have been already old at that
time.
We are thus thrown back to the examination of the manuscripts
themselves for the answer to our second question. Here our prin¬
cipal criterion must be paleography, the study of the form of script
employed by the scribes. On this basis, the first announcements
from the American School of Oriental Research and the Hebrew
University agreed in dating the manuscripts not far from the
beginning of the Christian era.
The controversy that ensued, it will be remembered, centered
largely about the scientific status and reliability of paleography.
The number of competent specialists in this field is not large, and
not all who have made pronouncements on the subject belong to
that number. The subject is too technical to be presented ade¬
quately here, but the most essential points may be stated in such
a way that one who does not know the Hebrew alphabet can un¬
derstand the nature of the problems and the major issues.
The essence of the method of paleography is the careful, exact
comparison of the different forms of each letter of the alphabet
found in documents of different periods, and their arrangement in
tables showing the gradual modifications. This procedure is like
that by which a paleontologist arranges fossil skeletons in order
and shows how the prehistoric Eohippus evolved into the horse. No
inherent process of evolution, of course, was at work in the history
of the alphabet. We are dealing here simply with the fact that
forms and styles of writing have actually changed as time went
on, like styles of clothing, architecture, or pottery. The changes
did not follow any inevitable or predictable course, but systematic
observation enables us to determine the order in which they oc¬
curred and to arrange the successive forms of the letters in his¬
torical sequence.
Sometimes, instead of being gradually modified, a script has
been abandoned and a different one adopted. Naturally we do not
often find a sudden and complete replacement of one script by
another, like the adoption of the Roman alphabet for the Turkish
The Dead Sea Scrolls
language in our own day. Even in that case, with a strong govern¬
ment endeavoring to enforce the change, it was not actually as
complete as it was intended to be. A much less drastic change from
one script to another took place in the history of ancient Hebrew
writing.
The older script is often called Phoenician because it was used in
Phoenician inscriptions, but it was also used in early times for
writing Hebrew and other languages. It is perhaps most appropri¬
ately called Canaanite. Still another designation sometimes used
is old or archaic Hebrew. Inscriptions found in Palestine and
Transjordan from the period before the Babylonian exile are writ¬
ten with this alphabet. The other and later form of writing is the
square or Aramaic script. This is found in documents from the
fifth century b.c. and has been used in modified forms for writing
Hebrew down to the present day.
The substitution of the Aramaic for the Canaanite script was
not sudden, complete, or final. The old script appears again on
Hebrew coins of the Maccabean period. The Samaritans still
use a form of it. Some of the fragments found in the Judean caves
employ this old script. In the Habakkuk Commentary it is used
for the divine name, Yahweh, and one of the excavated fragments
has the Hebrew word El, meaning God, written with the ancient
alphabet in the midst of a text in the later square script. One frag¬
ment from Cave 4 even uses a mixture of the two scripts.
For the most part, however, we are concerned with a gradual
process of modification within the square script. Even here there
are complicating factors. Changes in the writing of different let¬
ters do not all proceed together like a line of well-drilled soldiers.
Apart from individual peculiarities of handwriting, two manu¬
scripts written not far apart in time will sometimes exhibit differ¬
ences in the forms of some letters of the alphabet, while using the
same forms for others. Some letters prove more significant than
others because they show more clearly and consistently the evolu¬
tion of the alphabet. Local, national, or sectarian variations may
appear too, of course. Different writing materials also affect the
script When inscriptions are carved in stone the letters are not
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 85
formed in exactly the same way as when documents are written on
parchment with pen and ink.
Paleography by itself cannot fix specific dates. It can arrange
manuscripts in a chronological series; but it cannot tell how far
apart any two items of the series are in time except in a relative
way by observing the number and degree of the differences. If
the ends of the series or any of the items in it can be dated by
other means, then the relative chronology determined by paleo-
graphical data can be pegged down at one or more points to a
more exact date. In this respect paleography has much the same
possibilities and limitations as the use of pottery for the same
purpose.
Scholars who have questioned the dates assigned to the Dead
Sea Scrolls on the basis of paleography have made much of these
obvious limitations to justify their preference for other criteria.
Some of these criteria are important, but it is a mistake to suppose
that they are more exact or objective than paleography. The suc¬
cessive modifications of the letters of the alphabet are facts that
can be observed, recorded, and studied; and their significance can
be assessed by dispassionate discussion. If paleography is not an
exact science, it is a scientific discipline in the sense that it deals
with specific facts that can be recorded and studied objectively. It
is becoming more and more nearly exact as the material accumu¬
lates.
Several scholars have said that for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls
in particular paleography is of little use, because the material avail¬
able for comparison is not sufficiently abundant, and what there
is cannot be exactly dated. If what is meant is that we cannot
assign a manuscript to a specific year or decade, this is true; we
have quite adequate material, however, for determining the period
to which a manuscript belongs within, say, a half or a quarter of
a century.
Let us take a brief look at some of this material. Adopting the
procedure of S. A. Bimbaum, and following in general his treat¬
ment of the material, we may begin with medieval manuscripts
and work back to earlier texts. Bimbaum presents first a bill of
g0 The Dead Sea Scrolls
sale from the eleventh century a.d. A real similarity between such
a late text and the Dead Sea Scrolls would be significant. Actually
there is no such similarity, though Zeitlin had actually adduced
this very manuscript in support of his argument for a medieval
dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The bill of sale, in fact, is written
in a cursive script, related to the formal “book hand of biblical
manuscripts somewhat as our handwriting is related to our printed
alphabet, though the difference is not so great. The same thing is
true of “Fragment B” of the Damascus Document from the tenth
century a.d., which Zeitlin cited in the same connection. This looks
a little more like the Dead Sea Scrolls, but it could hardly be mis¬
taken for any of them.
Moving backward in time, Bimbaum gives charts showing some
of the most characteristic letters in the Dead Sea Scrolls side by
side with the same letters as they appear in a tenth-century codex
in Leningrad, a ninth-century codex in the British Museum, and a
fragment from the seventh century in the Cambridge University
Library. In another publication he shows also letters from a litur¬
gical papyrus fragment of the eighth century aj>., whose script
has been supposed to resemble that of the Habakkuk Commentary.
Comparison of the forms in the tables reveals marked differences
among the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, but the differences be¬
tween any one of them and any one of the medieval documents
are much more notable. This is equally true of a fifth-century He¬
brew letter that has been compared with the Habakkuk Commen¬
tary.
Bimbaum next presents a Hebrew papyrus fragment from Egypt,
which he dates in the fourth century a.d. Here some points of
similarity with the script of the Dead Sea Scrolls may be detected,
but the forms of the letters have developed much farther in the
direction of the medieval and modem scripts. From the early third
century comes a papyrus fragment of a liturgical text excavated at
Dura Europas on the Euphrates. Here again the script shows no
such resemblance to that of the Dead Sea Scrolls as to indicate
that they were contemporary.
Hebrew inscriptions of the third and second centuries exist in
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 87
sufficient number to supplement the scanty manuscript material
They include mosaic pavements of synagogues, such as the famous
mosaic of Beth Alpha, near Beisan, which shows the signs of the
Zodiac with their Hebrew names. Two inscriptions from about
200 A.D., found at Beth Shearim in 1953, have been published.
The forms of the letters in them contain nothing that requires any
qualification of what has just been said.
Hebrew papyri and manuscripts from the second century a.d.
have not been known until the last few years. Some of the manu¬
script fragments found in the caves of the Wady Murabbaat in
1952, however, are specifically dated in the first half of the second
century a.d. Only preliminary accounts and a few photographs
of them have been published, but these indicate that the forms of
the script found in the fragments show a development well be¬
yond that of the Qumran documents.
For the first century a.d. and the first century b.c. we have no
definitely dated manuscript material for comparison. We are there¬
fore largely dependent upon inscriptions. These include a few of
the formal type usually indicated by the term "inscription”; there
are also many of the more casual kind, known as graffiti, consisting
chiefly of names scratched in stone. Most of the latter are found
on ossuaries, small stone chests used as containers for human bones
during the period from the beginning of Herod’s reign (40 b.c.)
to the destruction of the temple (70 a.d.). Such roughly scratched
letters represent the ordinary writing of the time better than the
more artistic and more artificial lettering of carefully carved in¬
scriptions.
With the ossuary inscriptions may be mentioned a graffito found
in the tomb of Queen Helen of Adiabene at Jerusalem, popularly
known as the Tombs of the Kings. It is dated in the decade be¬
tween 50 and 60 a.d. There is also, carved on the architrave of a
tomb in the Kedron Valley at Jerusalem, a memorial inscription
of eight priests of the family of the sons of Hezir. Its script is like
that of the ossuaries, and, like them, it is generally recognized as
belonging to the period preceding the destruction of the temple.
The closest affinities with the writing in the Dead Sea Scrolls
88 The Dead Sea ScroUs
that have been found anywhere appear in the graffiti on ossuaries
and in a few other inscriptions of the same period. It is the script
of the later scrolls, moreover, that the script of the ossuaries re¬
sembles most closely. Among the latest forms of writing in the
scrolls found in 1947 * & e med ** Haba ^ k ^xomen-
tary and the Lamech Scroll. Trever and Albright find the closest
resemblance to this in an Aramaic dipinto, or painted inscription,
found in a Jewish tomb and published by Sukenik in i 9 34 - Sukenft
dated it shortly before the destruction of the temple; Albnght puts
it a little earlier, near the beginning of the Christian era.
More artistically carved, a really beautiful piece of work, is the
Uzziah inscription, so called because it states that the bones of
King Uzziah of Judah were moved from their previous resting
place to the place where this inscription was originally set up.
Like the ossuaries, it cannot be dated exactly, but it has long been
recognized as contemporary with them. Albright dates it after the
outbreak of the revolt of 6&-70 a.d. It therefore affords a further
basis for comparison with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the results of
the comparison are the same as in the case of the ossuaries.
For anything like the script of the older Dead Sea Scrolls we
must go back still further. About a century older than the in¬
scriptions just mentioned are some quite different in nature, but
still significant, with proper and obvious qualification. These are
the brief inscriptions carved on boundary stones found long ago
at Gezer. No exact date can be given for them, but epigraphists
are agreed in assigning them to the first half or third of the last
century b.c. The letters in these inscriptions, though quite roughly
cut in the stone, are notably like those of the St Mark s Isaiah
Manuscript.
Another very brief inscription, but more neatly carved than the
Gezer boundary inscriptions, appears beside the doorway of a
rock-cut tomb at Araq el-Emir, east of the Jordan. There is also
another inscription like it nearby. This is the place where the
Tobiads, a Jewish family prominent in the third and second cen¬
turies b.o, built a famous castle, the ruins of which can still be
seen there. We shall hear of the Tobiads again. The inscription.
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 89
which consists merely of the name Tobiah, is dated by Birnbaum
between 183 and 175 b.c., though Vincent considers it still earlier
by more than a century. The forms of three of the five Hebrew
letters in it resemble those in the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll, while
the other two are earlier. Even allowing for the possibility that
the script of an inscription carved in stone might be more con¬
servative than that of a manuscript written with pen and ink, we
may fairly suppose that with this inscription we have reached a
point not far from the time when the Isaiah manuscript was writ¬
ten—if, indeed, we have not gone back a little beyond it.
From here on we again have papyri to compare with our scrolls.
First of all there is the much-discussed Nash Papyrus, which was
first noted by Trever as having a script resembling that of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Trever places it, paleographically, between the earli¬
est and the latest Dead Sea Scrolls, later than the St. Mark’s
Isaiah manuscript and the Manual of Discipline, but earlier than
the Habakkuk Commentary, the Lamech Scroll, and the latest
corrections in the Isaiah manuscript. Unfortunately the date of
the papyrus itself is still disputed. The earliest date claimed for
it is that of Birnbaum, who assigns it to the early second century
b.c. He puts the Isaiah scroll slightly later, in "about the second
quarter" of the century. He thus disagrees with Trever as to the
relative age of these two manuscripts, but agrees with him that
they cannot be dated far apart. For myself I can only say here
that, on the basis of Bimbaum's own tables, the Nash Papyrus
still seems to me slightly later than the Isaiah scroll and very
close to the Manual of Discipline. The resemblances are so close,
and the differences so slight, that it is hardly safe to say more than
that all three manuscripts probably belong to the same half or
three-quarters of a century.
The comparison must be carried back, of course, not merely to
the point where we find a script so close to that of the Dead Sea
Scrolls as to indicate the same period; it must be pursued to a
point where documents appear in a script clearly earlier than that
of the scrolls. With the Nash Papyrus we have almost reached
that point.
go The Dead Sea Scrolls
Two Aramaic papyri and a few ostraca from the third century
b.c., found at Edfu on the upper Nile River, have been published.
Driver objects to their use for our purpose on the ground that
they “come from a different country, and their bulk is insufficient
to afford a proper standard of comparison” This would have some
force if it were claimed that the comparison conclusively demon¬
strated a specific date, but no such claim is made. As a part of
the total picture, together with all the other material, comparison
with these texts is valid and significant.
The Edfu papyri and ostraca exhibit a form of the alphabet
definitely more archaic than that which appears in the Dead Sea
Scrolls or the Nash Papyrus. Whether this means that they were
actually written at an earlier time—and, if so, how much earlier
may be open to argument; but until some reason to believe the
contrary is shown it is fair to suppose that the documents with
the more archaic script are earlier in date. Bimbaum adduces also
a legal papyrus of the third century b.c., now in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford, and by comparison with the Isaiah scroll con¬
cludes that here “we have gone too far back.” The forms of the
letters in the Isaiah scroll fall between those of the papyrus and
those of the ossuaries.
That the period of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been passed becomes
still more evident when we move back two more centuries, and
farther up the Nile, and consider the Aramaic papyri found at As¬
suan, the ancient Elephantine. These documents come from a
Jewish military colony that lived in Egypt in the fifth century b.c.
In these documents, which use a very early form of the square
script, there are still some interesting similarities with the script
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there can be no question that the
papyri were written long before the Dead Sea Scrolls. An even
earlier papyrus from the sixth century b.c. has been compared
with the Isaiah scroll by Bimbaum.
This survey, while by no means exhaustive, will give a fairly
adequate idea of the amount and nature of the material at the
disposal of the paleographer. Its use, to be convincing, obviously
demands much closer attention to innumerable details than can be
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 91
given here. One great advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, as com¬
pared with brief inscriptions or papyrus fragments, is that we
have not one or a few examples of each letter but a great many. In
order that the uninitiated reader may see more clearly how the
forms of the letters changed in the course of the centimes, typical
forms of the letter m are shown here in Figures 1 and 2.
Literary records have been adduced in an effort to control or
refute the findings of paleography. Zeitlin “has studied all passages
in the Talmud and Midrash wherein the forms of the Hebrew let¬
ters are described.” Examining the forms of h and m in the Dead
Sea Scrolls in the light of this literary evidence, he reaches the
conclusion that they are the forms used in the second and third
centuries a.d. If we had no actual documents for comparison that
could be even approximately dated, this line of argument might
be impressive; but even if the date and authenticity of the rabbinic
statements could be safely assumed, verbal descriptions of letters
of the alphabet would have to be very exact indeed to be as reliable
as actual examples in manuscripts and inscriptions. The descrip¬
tions quoted by Zeitlin do not inspire much confidence in this
respect.
Five of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet (k, m, n, p , and ?)
have two forms in the developed square script. One is used at the
beginning or in the middle of a word and is called the “medial"
form; the other is used at the end of a word and is called the “final"
form. The use of the two forms of these letters and the distinction
between the medial (or initial) and final positions developed grad¬
ually and unevenly. In the St. Mark’s Isaiah manuscript the two
forms of m and n are used, but the “medial” form of the m often
appears at the end of a word, and the “final” form is sometimes
found in the middle of a word. The other three letters in this group
do not yet have special final forms, though the k and $ are some¬
what longer when written at the end of a word. The Manual of
Discipline exhibits much the same phenomena.
In the Habakkuk Commentary and the Hebrew University s
Isaiah manuscript, at the other end of the series of Dead Sea
Scrolls, all five letters have their final forms, and these are regularly
1
9 *
The Dead Sea Scrolls
(a) (b) (c) (d)
3 a -3
3 * 3 3 4
4 0
5 * >> *1 *
Line l—Forms in the St Mark's Isaiah scroll
a—Forms in the Manual of Disapline
3— Forms in the Habakkuk Commentary
4— (a) Manuscript A of the Damascus Document
(b) Manuscript B of the Damascus Document
(c) A Dura parchment
(d) A Wady Murabbaat fragment
5— (a) The Uzziah Inscription
(b) The Nash Papyrus
(c) An Edfu papyrus
(d) An Elephantine papyrus
Figure i. Evolution of the letter M: medial forms
used in the final position. The Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, there¬
fore, provide important evidence for the development of the final
forms of these letters. Within the St Mark’s Isaiah scroll, as a
matter of fact, there is an interesting bit of such evidence, for a
passage omitted by the first scribe and later inserted has a final p,
which occurs nowhere else in the manuscript.
Can these facts be used to establish the age of the scrolls? Here
again statements in the rabbinic literature have been adduced to
establish the time when the final forms of the letters were adopted,
and hence the dates of the Dead Sea Scrolls. H. Tur-Sinai (Torczy-
ner) argues that the partial and irregular use of the final letters in
the St. Mark’s Isaiah manuscript corresponds to a rabbinic deci-
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 93
(a) (b) (c) (d)
1 5 V V V
2 t> t a a
3 1 0 Ti
4 1 > * JO ti
s V X) >) y
Line 1—Forms in the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll
a—Forms in the Manual of Discipline
3— Forms in the Habakkuk Commentary
4 — (a) Manuscript A of the Damascus Document
(b) Manuscript B of the Damascus Document
(c) A Dura parchment
(d) A Wady Murabbaat fragment
5— (a) The Uzziah Inscription
(b) The Nash Papyrus
(c) An Edfu papyrus
(d) An Elephantine papyrus
Figure 2. Evolution op the letter M: final forms
sion at the beginning of the second century a.d., whereas the regu¬
lar use of all the final forms in the later Dead Sea Scrolls represents
the practice at the middle or end of that century. Zeitlin contents
himself with the claim, likewise based on rabbinic pronounce¬
ments, that the final forms of the five letters were introduced after
the destruction of the temple and “came into vogue” after the time
of Aldba, but were still not well established in the second century.
This conclusion is made untenable by the archeological demon¬
stration that the manuscripts were already in the caves before the
end of the first century. It is refuted by other considerations also.
Birnbaum has shown that the Talmudic passages on which it is
based do not really imply what Tur-Sinai and Zeitlin infer from
94 The Dead Sea Scrolls
them. Even if they did, their testimony could not outweigh the
plain fact that the final forms are actually found in papyri and
inscriptions before the second century a j>.
Forms resembling the final or “closed” form of m begin to appear
as early as the fifth century b.c. Final forms of n and p also are
found in the Edfu papyri and the ossuaries. The use of the “final”
form in the medial position and the “medial” form in the final po¬
sition, as in the St. Mark’s Isaiah manuscript, is characteristic of
the ossuaries also.
Aside from the way in which the separate letters are formed, an
important characteristic of the writing of the scrolls is the use of
ligatures connecting two successive letters. In the centuries with
which we are concerned ligatures occur more frequently in earlier
than in later documents. In the papyri of the fourth and third cen¬
turies b.c., and in the Nash Papyrus, they appear often, but from
the early half of the first century they become more and more rare.
By the third century a.d. they have practically been abandoned.
They appear frequently in the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially in the
St. Mark's Isaiah scroll.
The letters of the Hebrew alphabet are all consonants, though a
few of them came to be used also for vowels. Systems of signs for
the vowels began to be used by about the fifth century a.d. The
presence or absence of such “vowel points” is therefore significant
for dating manuscripts. In the manuscripts found in the Cairo
genizah, vowel signs are occasionally used. None appear in the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Some excitement was aroused for a while by a
scholar’s announcement that he had detected what he thought
might be vowel signs in the Habakkuk Commentary, but these
proved to be only accidental specks such as occur often in the
manuscripts, without any relation to the writing. While the ab¬
sence of signs for the vowels is not positive evidence of an early
date, their presence would have been an important indication of a
relatively late date.
Thus far we have considered only the forms of the square or
Aramaic script used in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The picture is compli¬
cated and made more interesting, however, by the fact, already
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 95
mentioned, that the archaic script also appears in some of the
manuscripts. Here two problems must be distinguished: the occa¬
sional use of the archaic script for the divine name, and for the
word for God— El —in the midst of texts otherwise written in the
square script; and the use of the archaic script for entire manu¬
scripts. The occasional use may be considered first.
The material available for comparison in this case is less plenti¬
ful and satisfactory than what we have found for the study of the
square script. For the period before the Babylonian exile there is
an abundance of material, including the Lachish Letters of the
sixth century b.c., written on potsherds. For the centuries after the
Babylonian exile, when the Aramaic script was coming into gen¬
eral use, we have much less comparative material for the old He¬
brew script. There are many Phoenician, Punic, and neo-Punic in¬
scriptions. There are also Jewish coins using the old alphabet from
the Maccabean-Hasmonean period (second and first centuries
b.c.) and from the two Jewish revolts against Rome (66-70 and
132-135 a.d.). The highly developed and ornamental form of the
archaic script used by the Samaritans is found in many inscriptions
from the early Christian centuries.
On the basis of this varied and yet not very plentiful material
David Diringer considers the writing of the divine name in the
Habakkuk Commentary “stylized and rather unusual" and thinks
it was done “by a scribe who had no experience of early Hebrew
script.” The writing of the word El in a fragment from the first
cave, on the other hand, he regards as “non-sty lized" and “prob¬
ably in the same literary hand as the Leviticus fragments.” Bira-
baum finds the form of the archaic script used for the divine name
in the Habakkuk Commentary intermediate between the Lachish
Letters and the Jewish coins. Baruch Kanael concludes from a
comparison with the coins that the manuscripts of the Habakkuk
Commentary and the Thanksgiving Psalms (in one of which the
word eli appears in the archaic script) were written between the
reign of Herod and the destruction of the temple, that is between
40 b.c. and 70 a.d.
A somewhat different kind of evidence has been adduced to
gfl The Dead Sea Scrolls
support a later date. Copies of Greek translations of the Old
Testament written during the early Christian centuries sometimes
used Hebrew characters for the divine name. Some of them used
the square characters, or Greek letters more or less resembling
them, but two fragments, one of the third century and one of the
fifth century a.d., have the divine name in the old Hebrew script
Another example has now appeared in one of the Greek fragments
from Khirbet Mird. The third-century theologian Origen wrote
that in the best biblical manuscripts of his day the divine name
was written in the ancient Hebrew characters. Jerome also, about
a century later, remarked that in some Greek manuscripts the
divine name was still found in archaic letters.
While there may be some connection between this practice in
Greek translations and the use of archaic characters for the divine
name or the word El in Hebrew texts, we cannot take the one as
proving anything about the other. The indirect literary evidence
of Origen and Jerome could not at best have equal weight with
the paleographic evidence of the texts themselves; its implica¬
tions in any case are not at all clear. The usage of the Greek manu¬
scripts, in short, has no significance for our purpose.
We thus come to the other problem, the use of the old Hebrew
script for entire texts, as exemplified by the fragments of Leviticus
found in the first cave in 1949 and the other fragments in the
archaic script that have been found since in other caves. For com¬
parison here we have not only the relatively late material already
mentioned but also the whole mass of ancient inscriptions in the
old Hebrew script. None of this, it is true, is quite like the Qumran
fragments. We have no other texts in the archaic script written on
leather or parchment. The fragments are also the only known
specimens of a formal “bqpk hand” in that script. In comparing
them with the inscriptions we must remind ourselves again that
different kinds of writing may be used contemporaneously. Char¬
acters carved in stone, the formal book hand of literary manu¬
scripts, and the cursive script of such documents as the Lachish
Letters, written with ink on potsherds, may differ considerably.
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 97
The differences are not so great, however, as to make the inscrip¬
tions and letters useless for comparison.
The Leviticus fragments from the first cave have been carefully
compared by paleographers with the ninth-century b.c. Mesha
inscription, the ostraca of Samaria, and the Siloam inscription of
the eighth century b.c., seals and seal-impressions and the stamped
impressions on jar-handles of the seventh and sixth centuries b.c.,
the Lachish Letters of the sixth century b.c., later jar-handle
stamps of the fifth and fourth centuries b.c., Jewish coins of the
first century b.c. and the first and second centuries a.d., and
Samaritan inscriptions ranging in date from the second century
a.d., or earlier, to the eighth or ninth century. The conclusions
reached vary quite widely, placing the fragments at dates rang¬
ing from about 450 b.c. to about 50 b.c.
This discrepancy of about three centuries in the conclusions
of competent scholars is somewhat disturbing. Those who put no
trust in paleography cannot be blamed for contemplating it with
satisfaction. The explanation may be found in the nature of the
evidence. The material for comparison is all somewhat different
in character from the Leviticus fragments, being carved in stone,
stamped in clay, or written on potsherds instead of skin, while tire
script is either monumental or cursive rather than literary. This
fact may be enough to explain why the interpretation of the
same data by competent scholars can differ so widely. Diringcr
points out also that a professional literary script like that of the
Leviticus fragments might become standardized and continue in
use for several centuries without much change.
Yet while the evidence is unsatisfactory, it is not negligible. We
can be quite sure that the fragments are not earlier than the fifth
century b.c. or later than the first century b.c. The earlier rather
than the later half of this period of five centuries seems more
likely, unless the script was deliberately archaistic.
As was the case in the other matters previously discussed, the
argument concerning the date of the Leviticus fragments was not
allowed to rest on paleographic comparisons alone. Literary evi-
98 The Dead Sea Scrolls
dence was adduced to show that the use of the old Hebrew alpha¬
bet by Jews continued down into the present era. Without deny¬
ing that the square script was commonly used for biblical manu¬
scripts in the first century a.d., scholars have found reason to
believe that the old Hebrew script also continued in use, and that
biblical manuscripts in that script were still in existence as late
as the second century. A rabbinic statement that only texts written
in the square script were holy has been used as evidence both for
and against this contention. It seems most reasonable to infer
from it that the old script would no longer be used for new manu¬
scripts of the law, even if old manuscripts written with the ancient
alphabet still survived. In any case, conjectures based on literary
sources have no force as against the concrete data of paleography.
These point, as we have seen, to a pre-Christian date, probably
not later than the third or second century b.c. What is most sig¬
nificant, after all, is not the mere fact that the old script is used,
but the particular form of it used in each manuscript.
It must be remembered that all this discussion is concerned
with the five Leviticus fragments found in 1949. Very few of the
numerous fragments in the archaic script found later and now
being studied at the Palestine Museum have yet been published.
F. M. Cross, who has been working on them, has mentioned the
third century b.c. as a possible date, but he considers it more
likely that the script is an archaizing revival of the second cen¬
tury, the Maccabean period.
The science of paleography involves more than the forms of the
letters. Other characteristics of the maimer of writing must be
considered also. One of the most conspicuous features of the Dead
Sea Scrolls is the fact that lines were carefully ruled to guide the
writing. The antiquity of this practice is well attested. The Pales¬
tinian Talmud attributes it to a regulation of Moses from Sinai
Zeitlin dismisses this as merely a fictitious justification of what was
really a new procedure only recently adopted from the Greeks
and Romans. Bimbaum considers it rather an indication that the
process was known to be very ancient. He cites another statement
by a famous second-century rabbi, which carries the origin of
•* The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 99
the ruling of manuscripts back to Adam. In fact, he points out, even
the Leviticus fragments in the old Hebrew script are ruled.
Still another feature of the scrolls that comes under the heading
of paleography is the use of marks in the margins of the columns.
The Habakkuk Commentary frequently has a simple cross like a
capital X at the end of a line. Similar crosses appear occasionally
in the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll, but in the margin. Teicher has in-
' terpreted these as the Greek letter chi, which he thinks stood for
Christos and was used to mark Christological passages. This is a
corollary to his theory that the covenanters were Jewish Christians.
I. Sonne has shown that it involves several improbable assump¬
tions. He takes the X to be a Hebrew taw, meaning simply “mark,"
and believes that it was used to mark passages considered for any
reason helpful or useful. In the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and in the
Manual of Discipline there is often a short horizontal line in the
margin, or a line having a hook at one end. Most striking, how¬
ever, are several very elaborate and mysterious signs in the margins
of these two manuscripts.
The me anin g of all these signs has not yet been satisfactorily
explained. Some of them may mark-passages selected for public
reading or regarded as especially significant for doctrine. Some
may possibly call attention to errors in copying that require cor¬
rection. Some are so elaborate as to tempt one to regard them as
mere idle "doodling” by an absent-minded scribe or student, but
of course such an explanation can be entertained only as a last
resort. For a convincing solution of the problem we may have to
wait until comparable examples of the same kind of marking
have been found in other manuscripts.
When the fragments found in the excavation of the first cave
in 1949 were exhibited in London, Kahle announced that he had
found writing on both sides of some of them, showing that they
had been parts of books in codex form—i.e., volumes of bound
pages. On the ground that manuscripts are not known to have
been made in this form in the East before the second century a.d.,
Kahle concluded that the latest of the manuscripts in the cave
. could not be earlier than that century. To this Bimbaum replied
ioo The Dead Sea Scrolls
that none of the fragments written on skin had writing on both
sides. Six out of about thirty fragments of papyrus bore writing
on both front and back, but in no case was the writing clearly
the same on both sides; in fact, in three fragments it was plainly
different, and in one the writing on the two sides ran in different
directions. It seems more likely, therefore, that these pieces of
papyrus had been used twice than that they were parts of pages
from codices.
Still other considerations have helped to complicate the plot.
It was supposed at first that one of the fragments found in the
first cave bore two Greek letters. Later it was seen that these char¬
acters more probably belonged to a cursive Hebrew script found
on some of the other fragments. Ka hl e thought he could identify
on one fragment two letters of the Estrangelo Syriac script, which
was probably unknown in Palestine before the first or second
century a.d. Other scholars, however, who have looked for these
letters could not find them.
The net result of all the investigation and debate concerning the
paleographical evidence is that the initial impressions of those
who first examined the scrolls from this point of view have been
substantially confirmed. The arguments of those who maintained
a date later than the first century a.d.— to say nothing of the
Middle Ages—have been refuted both by the archeological evi¬
dence from the excavations and by the paleographical evidence
of the manuscripts themselves. There are still differences of opin¬
ion as to the quarter or half of a century to which this or that
scroll should be assigned. There is less agreement regarding the
fragments in the archaic script. Among scholars qualified to judge
the paleographic data, however, no great divergence concerning
the major scrolls remains. There is even some justification for the
complaint of Bimbaum that the whole debate was not a con¬
troversy among paleographers but an attack on paleography by
specialists in other fields.
Unexpected confirmation of the general result has been af¬
forded by the later material found in the caves of Wady Murab-
baat Some of these texts contain exact dates. Their script is plainly
The Evidence of Archeology and Paleography 101
much later than that of the Qumran scrolls and fragments. The
reliability of the paleographical method of dating manuscripts has
thus been brilliantly vindicated.
While paleography remains our principal means of determining
how old the manuscripts are, there are some other criteria to
supplement and check its results. One of these is the nature
of the material of which the scrolls are made. The use of
leather and papyrus instead of parchment for the scrolls has been
adduced as evidence for a date before the fourth century a.d.
The significance of this fact, however, is only relative at best. As
far as it goes, it supports the rest of the evidence, but it is less
precise and less conclusive than the other criteria afforded by
archeology and paleography.
Not only the skin but the ink has been considered as a means of
dating the manuscripts, but it has not proved helpful. From state¬
ments in the Talmud, scholars have inferred that metallic ink
was not used by the Jews before the second or third century a.d.
Bimbaum has pointed out, to be sure, that the ink of the Lachish
Letters in the sixth century b.c. already contained iron. But when
the ink on the manuscript fragments from the first cave was an¬
alyzed in 1949 by Dr. Plenderleith of the British Museum, it was
found to be non-metallic. Later this proved true also of the dried
ink in one of the inkwells unearthed at Khirbet Qumran. The
composition of the ink, therefore, provides no evidence concerning
the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
All the lines of investigation converge fairly well on a historical
period within which all the manuscripts were written, extending
from about 300 b . c . to 68 or 70 a . d . The relative age of the dif¬
ferent manuscripts is fairly clear also, and the approximate place
of each within the period is reasonably assured. Two more lines
of investigation, however, have been pursued, and we must still
consider the results of these inquiries. They are concerned not
with the leather and ink or the forms of the letters, but with the
language and text of what is written in the manuscripts.
V
The Evidence of Text and Language
TJXTLTLnJTJlTlJT^^
»
If it could be assumed that the original compositions had been
copied without change or error, the form of the text and the lan¬
guage of the documents would have no immediate bearing on
the age of the particular copies found in the caves. Actually
manuscripts are never copied with complete accuracy. The ancient
scribes were not always as careful as they might have been, and
the best of them were only human. It is interesting to observe
how often they made the same kinds of mistakes that typists and
printers make now.
When many copies of various ages are available for comparison,
as in the study of the Greek text of the New Testament, it is
possible to group the manuscripts by types and families in a
kind of pedigree, and so to determine more or less completely the
history of the text with its successive modifications. For the Dead
Sea Scrolls this line of investigation is open only in the case of
the biblical manuscripts, because they are the only ones of which
we have other copies. Even for these, unfortunately, we do not
have other manuscripts of an age approaching that of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Between the two Qumran manuscripts of the book of
Isaiah and the next oldest Hebrew manuscripts of that book there
is a gap of several centuries, to put it very conservatively. Con¬
sequently we cannot compare the scrolls with any older copies
of the Hebrew text.
Aside from the scrolls and fragments from the Wady Qumran
104
The Evidence of Text and Language 103
and a few scraps of papyrus from Egypt, all our manuscripts of
the Hebrew Old Testament contain the text as it was edited
and standardized during the first few centuries of the Christian
era. This was done by Jewish scholars called Masoretes (from
the Hebrew word masora, meaning tradition), and the text they
established is called the Mas ore tic text The question at issue as
regards the age of the Dead Sea biblical manuscripts is their
relation to this Masoretic text.
The large extent of agreement with the Masoretic text in some
of the scrolls has been cited as evidence against an early date.
Since the Masoretic text was not fixed before the Christian era,
it is assumed that any text that agrees with it cannot be pre-
Christian. Stated thus baldly, the argument involves obvious fal¬
lacies. It is never actually put quite so crudely, but the fallacies
are only obscured by the refinements of the argument Before
considering how these considerations affect the dating of the Dead
Sea Scrolls, we must examine the presuppositions a little more
closely.
First of all, the time when the Masoretic text was established
is not a fixed point, before or after which any form of the text
can be dated. The standardization of the text was not an event
but a process. In the second place, the Masoretes did not create
an entirely new text; they did not compose a new Bible out of
nothing. They tried to discover and restore the correct text. An
absolutely correct text, if it could be recovered, would be the
original text as it came from the author of each book. The best
attainable text is that which goes back most nearly to that original
form. The Masoretes, in other words, were editing ancient writings.
If they were at all successful in achieving their purpose, a manu¬
script written long before their time might and should agree
closely with the text which they adopted. This would show only
that they had good manuscripts at their disposal and did their
work well.
If a long manuscript agreed exactly with the Masoretic text at
every point, or with only rare exceptions, then we might reason¬
ably infer that it was a copy of the standard text established by the
10 4 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Masoretes, and consequently that it was made after they did their
work. In a brief passage, however, even complete agreement
proves nothing except that the text adopted by the Masoretes
agreed at this particular point with the one followed by the
scribe who made the manuscript. No scholar would seriously
maintain that every copy made before the time of the Masoretes
would necessarily differ from their text in every verse, yet this
seems to have been tacitly assumed in much of the discussion of
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Differences from the Masoretic text, on the other hand, do not
necessarily indicate that a manuscript was written before the
time of the Masoretes. The official adoption of a standard form of
the text and the elimination of all other forms are two different
matters. Unofficial texts varying considerably from the standard
may have remained in existence for some time.
Three stages in the formation of the Masoretic text must be
distinguished. First, there was the gradual development of various
forms of the text, including that which was later to be accepted
as normative. No one manuscript, perhaps, contained the whole
text of any book exactly as the Masoretes adopted it. Their work
was presumably eclectic, and perhaps even to some extent creative,
though not intended to be so. On the whole, however, the text
they approved must have had ancient traditions behind it.
The second stage was therefore the choice among variant tra¬
ditions, involving a decision as to what reading was to be accepted
for each verse and word. Third and last came the elimination of
all manuscripts that did not conform to the approved text. Not
until after this had been accomplished would the production of
new manuscripts containing variant readings cease altogether.
Only when all new copies were carefully corrected, and all old
or new copies that differed from the official norm were destroyed,
was the process of standardization complete. That point may not
have been reached before the eighth century a.d.
The importance of these distinctions becomes apparent when
one reads what has been written about the text of the St. Mark s
Isaiah scroll. This manuscript is full of minor deviations from the
The Evidence of Text and Language 105
Masoretic text in details of spelling and grammar. There are also
many variant readings of greater importance. In Isaiah 34:17-35:1,
thirty-one words which the scribe had omitted were later inserted
between the lines in a band'which we have already seen to be
different from that of the rest of the scroll. Unlike the rest of the
manuscript, this inserted matter agrees throughout with the
Masoretic text. On the ground that this text would not have been
available before the second century a.d., it has been argued that
the completed manuscript, with this correction in it, could not
have been left in the cave before the second century. Here one
sees clearly the strange and quite unwarranted assumption that
agreement with the standard text, even in a brief passage, is
inconsistent with a pre-Masoretic date.
The difference between the inserted words and the rest of the
manuscript is more significant than their agreement with the
Masoretic text. It indicates, or at least suggests, that the scroll
may have been already quite old when these words were copied
into it. Another insertion at the end of Chapter 38 agrees like¬
wise with the Masoretic text, whereas the main text to which it
has been added differs from that of the Masoretes at many points.
This fact has been taken as evidence of the early origin of the
scroll itself and of a considerable interval between the time when it
was first written and the time when this addition was made. During
this interval the Masoretic text is supposed to have become gen¬
erally known and accepted. This does not necessarily follow,
however. AJ 1 that we can safely say is that during the interval the
same readings in these verses that were adopted by the Masoretes
had been accepted by the corrector who made the insertions.
Before drawing conclusions from the differences between the St.
Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text, we must ask how far
they are merely mistakes made in the writing of this manuscript
Certainly there are many obvious mistakes, including the omission
or addition of one or more words, the confusion of words and letters,
the substitution of one word for another, the transposition of
words or of letters within a word, and various errors of other
kinds. A few of these may be mentioned here by way of illustration.
log The Dead Sea Scrolls
There are a good many omissions, sometimes of considerable
extent. In Isaiah 2:9-10, where there is clearly something wrong
with the Masoretic text, the scroll omits twelve Hebrew words. The
omission does not improve matters. Probably the text followed
by the scribe was already corrupt, and he could make nothing of
it. The scroll contains three good examples of a familiar error
called homoioteleuton, the omission of a passage between two
occurrences of the same word or two words that end with the same
letters. In Isaiah 4 :5f. the phrase "by day"—in Hebrew an adverb
—occurs in the middle of verse 5 and again in the middle of verse
6. Our scribe has skipped from the former occurrence to the
latter, omitting what comes between. In Chapter 16 the town
of Sibmah is mentioned in verse 8 and again in verse 9. Again the
scribe has jumped from the one to the other, leaving out in this
instance twenty words. The city of Tyre is named twice in verse
15 of Chapter 23, and again the same thing has happened.
These are eiTors of the eye rather than of the ear. If our manu¬
script was written from dictation, as there is some reason to
believe, it must have been the reader’s eye that jumped from one
word to another, unless the error had already been made in the
copy from which he was reading. As we have already observed,
words omitted have been inserted later in a number of places,
sometimes in the hand of the scribe himself and sometimes in a
later hand.
The scroll has also some additions to the traditional text To the
words "your hands are full of blood" in Isaiah 1:15 our text adds
"and your fingers of iniquity." These words occur later in 59:3
and may have been inserted here through a slip of memory. In 34:4
the clauke "and all the host of heaven shall be dissolved” becomes
"and the valleys shall be cleft asunder and all the hosts of heaven
shall fade." The mention of valleys goes well with the references
to mountains in the preceding verses, but the repetition intro¬
duced into the latter part of the verse arouses suspicion. At the
end of 52:12, after the words "the God of Israel,” the scroll adds,
"the God of all the earth shall he be called.” Here again these
words, which appear later in 54:5, may have been inserted
The Evidence of Text and Language 107
by an error of the scribe or reader, or by one of their predecessors.
Diametrically opposite inferences have been drawn from the
abundance of such mistakes in this manuscript. If a manuscript
is made soon after the composition of the book it contains, it should
be relatively free from errors. The mistakes naturally accumulate
as one copy after another is made. For this reason it has been
argued that the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll is too full of mistakes to
be very ancient. On the other hand, the very fact that such liber¬
ties are taken with the biblical text has been cited as proof that
the manuscript must be pre-Masoretic. Certainly the degree of
accuracy in a manuscript is no sure indication of its age. The
Masoretic text undoubtedly rests on manuscripts both older and
better than the St. Mark’s manuscript of Isaiah. At the same time
this manuscript is certainly older than the work of the Masoretes.
The archeological and paleographical evidence we have already
discussed is sufficient proof of that
Aside from obvious or probable mistakes in copying, there are
many variations that cannot be explained in this way. Even so,
by and large the wording of the text is substantially the same as
that of the Masoretes. This very fact, indeed, has been used against
it. Zeitlin argues that if the scroll were pre-Christian it would have
some of the variant readings found in early rabbinic sources. He
gives a list of fifty such variants and finds that in all cases the scroll
agrees with the Masoretic text instead of the rabbinic sources.
Here again is the curious assumption that a pre-Masoretic text
would necessarily be different from the Masoretic text. It is even
assumed that the differences would necessarily be the same as
those in the rabbinic literature. Neither assumption, or course, is
justified. To suppose that before the official text was fixed there
was one and only one set of variant readings is purely gratuitous.
The fact that two quite different manuscripts of Isaiah were found
in the same cave shows that more than one type of text was known
at the same time in the same place. This was what made the work
of the Masoretes necessary. Zeitlin's argument has been subjected
to s ea r chin g analysis by I. Sonne, who not only exposes the unwar¬
ranted assumptions it involves but also shows that the list of
10 g The Dead Sea Scrolls
variants is itself open to criticism. Some of these readings do not
appear in the best manuscripts of the same rabbinic sources. Some¬
times other quotations of the same biblical text elsewhere in the
same source actually agree with the Masoretic reading.
The manuscript of Isaiah acquired by Sukenik in 1947 agrees
very closely with the Masoretic text. This may well mean that it
is considerably later than the St. Mark’s manuscript, as the pale¬
ography indicates. It is surely unnecessary to say again that the
agreement with the Masoretic text does not demonstrate a date
after the fixation of the text. The archeological evidence shows
that this is impossible. The agreement shows simply that this scroll
represents the same textual tradition as the manuscripts followed
by the Masoretes.
The Habakkuk Commentary quotes the text of all but the third
chapter of Habakkuk, except that the beginning of the first chapter
is lost Kahle holds that this manuscript was copied before the
destruction of the temple, because it has not been influenced by
the Masoretic text. It is not quite clear just what is meant by the
influence of the Masoretic text, or how such influence could be
detected. To do this with certainty would require a knowledge of
the earlier text that is supposed to have been altered under the
influence of the Masoretic text. It seems precarious also to assume
that any manuscript copied after the destruction of the temple
would necessarily betray influence of the standard text. Delcor, in
fact, denies Kahle’s claim that the text of Habakkuk in the Com¬
mentary shows no such influence. Even where a different reading
is given in quoting the text, the commentary on it sometimes seems
to imply the Masoretic reading. We can only conclude that the
text of Habakkuk in this document gives no significant evidence
of the date of the manuscript. Certainly it contains nothing to
cast doubt on the results readied in other ways.
Bimbaum remarks that even the text of the Leviticus fragments
in the old Hebrew script agrees with the Masoretic text He rightly
observes, however, that this affords no basis for dating the frag¬
ments, since the material is very scanty, and the date of the
Masoretic text itself is disputed. Other fragments found in the
The Evidence of Text and Language 109
caves show marked deviation from the readings of the Masoretes.
The fragments of the books of Samuel consistendy agree with the
Septuagint as against the Masoretic text. They have also some
readings not attested elsewhere, which seem to be superior both
to the Masoretic text and to the Septuagint.
By and large it appears that the form of the biblical text in the
Dead Sea Scrolls cannot be used as evidence for dating them. Argu¬
ments based on it involve too many questionable assumptions to be
convincing. The dates of the manuscripts must be established on
other grounds; then conclusions can be drawn from them concern¬
ing the history of the text What these conclusions may be we
must consider when we are ready to discuss the importance of the
manuscripts.
For at least one of the scrolls, if not more, some indication as
to the time when the manuscript was made is afforded by its
language. In general the language of a document indicates the
date of the original composition rather than that of a particular
copy. Since no text is ever copied exaedy, however, the language
may be altered more or less consciously by the copyists under the
influence of their own language or dialect. Even in printed books
the spelling and to some extent the language is often modernized
in new editions of such works as Shakespeare’s plays, not to men¬
tion the King James Version of the Bible.
A conspicuous example of such alteration is the St. Mark's Isaiah
scroll. The book of Isaiah certainly comes from a time several cen¬
turies before the earliest date to which this manuscript can be
assigned on any grounds. Most of the differences between the
scroll and the Masoretic text consist of changes in spelling and in
the grammatical forms of words. In these respects, with some
notable exceptions, the Masoretic text has preserved a form of the
Hebrew language closer to the dialect of Jerusalem as it was spoken
in the time of Isaiah than the language of the scroll is. In other
words, the text of the scroll has more changes in grammar and
spelling from the original language of Isaiah than the Masoretic
text has. The manuscript thus represents a particular dialect of
Hebrew, or a particular stage in the history of the language. Our
no The Dead Sea Scrolls
question now is whether this affords any due for dating the
manuscript
Some of the peculiarities in spelling may be attributed to the
ignorance or carelessness of the scribe. The fact that he is not con¬
sistent in his idiosyncrasies shows that he was not adhering to any
particular system of orthography. His peculiar spelling may betray
merely a lack of education. It may reflect also a stage of transition
in Hebrew orthography.
The most conspicuous feature of the orthography of this manu¬
script is its lavish use of what is known as scriptio plena —that is,
the use of letters of the alphabet to indicate vowels. Since the
Hebrew alphabet consists only of consonants, there were many
possibilities of ambiguity in written texts untfl ways of indicating
the vowels were devised. As in English the consonants bd might
represent bad, bed, bead, bid, bud, bide, bode, abide, abode, or
even body, so a group of Hebrew consonants may often represent
any one of several words. There are many places in the Old Testa¬
ment where reading the same consonants with different vowels
makes a material difference in the meaning of the text. In our
printed Hebrew Bibles the vowels are indicated by a system of
"pointing” devised in the Middle Ages.
Before this or any similar system had been invented, the only
means of indicating the vowels was the use of to to indicate o
or u, of y to indicate i or e, and of h to indicate a or sometimes o or
e. Another letter used in this way was aleph, the first letter of
the alphabet (represented in transliteration by ’), which did not
originally represent the vowel a, as in our alphabet, but a light
consonantal sound, the so-called glottal stop.
The practice of using these "vowel letters,” technically called
moires lectionis, began very early; but it was not highly developed
until after the Old Testament period. In the St. Marks Isaiah
scroll it is followed to an extraordinary degree. The result is that
many words appear longer than they do in the Masoretic text,
and this effect is enhanced by the use of longer forms of some
pronominal suffixes. The difference is sometimes almost grotesque.
For instance, bhltw becomes bhwlywtyw ; rSm becomes rwltyhmh.
The Evidence of Text and Language ill
The prevalence of scriptio plena in this scroll has been discussed
by scholars at considerable length in the effort to establish the date
of the manuscript. Such a lavish and unsystematic use of metres
lectionis would hardly be found in a biblical manuscript written
after the text had been standardized. Kahle has called attention
to the fact that the use of vowel letters is not uniform throughout
the manuscript. The scriptio plena is used more freely in Chapters
34-66 than in Chapters 1-33. The paleography does not change,
but the same scribe may have followed two different manuscripts
for the two halves of the book. Kahle therefore sees here an indica¬
tion of two different types of text. He does not infer that either
type was earlier than the other, but merely that the two manu¬
scripts used by our scribe exemplified different habits of spelling.
The difference between the two halves of the scroll in this
respect is real. Kahle’s explanation of it, however, is not necessarily
correct. The change at the end of Chapter 33 is not quite so sharp
or complete as he implies. Monsignor Patrick Skehan, who is
preparing a collation of this manuscript for the American Schools
of Oriental Research, feels that the scribe merely slipped into a
less exact manner of copying and indulged more freely in the
lise of vowel letters as he went on.
When did the scriptio plena begin to be used? Some scholars,
attempting to use the orthography of the scroll as an aid in dating
it, have made much of the idea that vowel letters were unnecessary
so long as Hebrew was a living language. This is not quite true:
there is always a large degree of ambiguity in a merely consonantal
text even for a people brought up in the living use of the language.
Vowel letters, or some other indications of the vowels, were
unnecessary only when and where the correct pronunciation of
the text was preserved by oral tradition. The written text was then
only an aid to memory. The introduction of vowel letters in
biblical manuscripts may have been motivated by a fear that the
correct oral tradition was dying out, or by the fact that divergent
oral traditions had developed. Against the view that scriptio plena
came into use when Hebrew ceased to be a living language,
Bimbaum argues that Hebrew was no longer the spoken language
112
The Dead Sea Scrolls
of the Jews in the third century b.c., when the Greek version
known as the Septuagint was made; yet the Septuagint often pre¬
supposes different vowels from those of the pointed Masoretic
text, thus showing that there were possibilities of misunderstand¬
ing that would not have existed if vowel letters had been used.
An interesting variation on the theme that scriptio plena was
introduced because Hebrew was no longer a living language
has been put forward by Kahle. The vowel letters must have come
into general use, he says, at a time when many Jews were begin¬
ning again to study Hebrew. This points to the nationalistic
revival of the Maccabean period. From that time on until the
destruction of the temple the use of vowel letters was customary.
Kahle therefore takes the abundant use of them in the St. Mark’s
Isaiah scroll, especially its second part, to indicate that the scroll
was written between the Maccabean period and 70 a.d. This
conclusion is more convincing than the argument. A more prob¬
able view is that scriptio plena was introduced gradually during
the centuries before the Masoretes established the standard text,
and the Masoretes eliminated most of the vowel letters on the basis
of their oldest manuscripts.
According to Driver the introduction of scriptio plena did not
precede but followed the Masoretic standardization of the text.
It was just coming into use in the third century a.d., he argues, be¬
cause Origen makes very few mistakes that can be explained by a
lack of vowels in his manuscripts, and Jerome in the fourth century
makes hardly any such mistakes. The earliest attempts at vowel¬
pointing were made in the fifth century. After that the scriptio
plena was unnecessary and began to die out. The free use of vowel
letters in the Dead Sea Scrolls leads Driver therefore to the con¬
clusion that they cannot be dated before the time of Origen or
Jerome. This argument is extremely precarious. The absence of
mistakes in reading vowels in Origen and Jerome may indicate
only that they were still acquainted with an accurate oral tra¬
dition of the pronunciation.
There is abundant evidence of scriptio plena long before the
time of Origen. Vowel letters begin to appear in inscriptions as
The Evidence of Text and Language 113
early as the eighth century b.c., though their use was not fully
developed until later. They occur much more frequently in the
latest books of the Old Testament than in the earlier books. A
study of Hebrew orthography by Cross and Freedman points
to the Maccabean period as the time when scriptio plena reached
its highest development.
The peculiarites of orthography in the St. Mark’s Isaiah manu¬
script and other Dead Sea Scrolls are not necessarily to be explained
in terms of time only. They may, at least in part, represent local
differences. It is possible also, as Kahle points out, that the free
use of vowel letters was characteristic of unofficial or "vulgar”
texts. A group like that which produced the Qumran manuscripts
may not have felt bound by the rules governing scribes who made
“official” copies for the temple and the synagogues.
It is a curious fact that mutually contradictory arguments have
been based on the presence or absence of scriptio plena. Sukenik’s
manuscript of Isaiah agrees very closely with the Masoretic orthog¬
raphy. Kahle holds, therefore, that it could not have been written
before the second century a.d. But the spelling of the Masoretes
was not a new creation of the second or third century. It is more
reasonable to suppose that this manuscript follows an older text,
not influenced by the newer type of spelling used in the St. Mark’s
manuscript.
Sukenik himself stated the matter accurately. During the last
century before the destruction of the temple, he said, the full
writing with vowel letters was already being used to facilitate
reading, both in new compositions and in the ancient text of the
Bible. During the same period, however, biblical manuscripts
using the older orthography were in circulation also. Sukenik’s
manuscript preserves die old spelling; the St. Mark’s manuscript
uses vowel letters to indicate the pronunciation of the words;
but both scrolls were probably read with the same pronunciation.
Other distinctive features of the spelling in the St. Mark’s manu¬
script are of purely technical interest and need not be mentioned
here. Frequendy the spelling is so peculiar as to suggest that the
scribe was writing by ear rather than copying another manuscript
11^ The Dead Sea Scrolls
directly. He may have been writing from dictation or even from
memory. In any case, he was unquestionably rather careless and
often used a kind of rough-and-ready phonetic spelling of his own.
There is one rather important indication, however, that in some
respects he was following a very ancient tradition. His spelling of
proper names and titles, as Dewey Beegle has shown, is some¬
times more in accord with their original meaning than the spelling
of the Masoretes. For example, the Assyrian title that is spelled
Tartan in the Masoretic text appears in the scroll as Tartan. The
original Assyrian form is turtannu. The name given by the
Masoretes as Sharezer is Sharuzer in the scroll, corresponding again
more closely to the Assyrian spelling. The Masoretic text spells
Rabshakeh as one word; this was originally an Assyrian title con¬
sisting of two words, and in the St Mark’s manuscript there is
a space between them—Rob Shakeh. The preservation of forms
closer to the original Assyrian names or titles does not necessarily
prove that this manuscript is very ancient, but it indicates depend¬
ence at these points on a tradition older than the Masoretic text.
From all this it can be seen that for the purpose of dating the
St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll its distinctive orthography gives little help.
It neither confirms nor refutes the conclusions of archeology and
paleography. At most we may say that it is not inconsistent with
those conclusions.
But the language of the scroll has other distinctive features.
There are peculiarities not only of spelling but also of grammatical
forms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and especially in the St Mark’s
I saiah scroll Since many of the readers for whom the present book
is intended cannot be expected to know Hebrew, only a general
indication of a few of these grammatical peculiarities can be
given here. For example, in some places where the Masoretic text
has unaccented short vowels, there are vowel letters in the scroll
suggesting that in the dialect of its scribe these vowels were long
and presumably accented. Certain pronouns and suffixes that end
with consonants in the Masoretic text have an additional long a
at the end in the manuscript. This is rather striking because such
a final a is believed to have been used in the earliest form of
The Evidence of Text and Language 1x5
the language; it then dropped out of use in Hebrew, but it reap¬
pears in medieval compositions, probably under the influence of
classical Arabic. Occasionally it appears in the Masoretic text
of the Old Testament, where it can be explained either as an
archaic survival or as a medieval innovation. Apparently the
Qumran community still used the old pronunciation. It is worth
noting in this connection that the Samaritan dialect still pre¬
serves these final vowels.
Other grammatical features of the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll sug¬
gest Aramaic influence. Some have supposed, therefore, that the
manuscript must have been written after Aramaic had become
the language of Jewish scholars. Others have argued, however,
that these forms support an early date for the manuscript, because
they do not appear in the transcription of the Hebrew text in
Greek letters given by Origen in his Hexapla. Aside from affinities
with the Aramaic language in general, points of contact with the
Palestinian Christian dialect of Aramaic have been noted.
To make a long story short, it seems that while the spelling of
this scroll is relatively late, the grammatical forms indicated by that
spelling are older than those preserved in the Masoretic text. The
syntax as well as the forms of the words sometimes differs from
that of the Masoretes, but these differences cannot be described
without using technical language. As in the spelling and the
forms of words, there is no consistency in the peculiarities of
syntax. The scribe who wrote the manuscript followed his copy
on the whole, but now and then he slipped into forms of speech
more familiar to him in his own dialect. All these facts are impor¬
tant for the historical grammar of the Hebrew language, but in
the present state of our knowledge they afford no clear evidence
as to the age of the scroll. In fact, the linguistic peculiarities need
not have originated in this particular manuscript; many of them
may conceivably have crept into the text in earlier copies.
These matters of spelling and grammar must be investigated in
all the biblical texts found in the caves, with the Masoretic text
as a basis of comparison. For the non-biblical texts we have no
other manuscripts to serve this purpose. It is impossible to tell
n6 The Dead Sea Scrolls
how far the language in these documents is that of the original
compositions, and how far it has undergone such changes in the
course of the transmission as we find in the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll.
We have therefore no means of knowing how far the linguistic
evidence reflects the time of the author of each book and how
far it reflects the time when the manuscript was made. It is fairly
safe to assume that the difference in time between the original
composition of the non-biblical documents and the making of the
Qumran manuscripts containing them was considerably less than
in the case of the biblical texts. Even this rule, however, may have
exceptions. The fragments of the book of Daniel, for example, may
be as near in time to the composition of the lxx>k as the scroll of
the Manual of Discipline is to the time when that work was
composed. Only in a very general and tentative way, therefore, can
any conclusions as to the age of these manuscripts be drawn from
their language. In fact, the criterion of language has proved to
to be of much less use for dating the manuscripts than was at first
supposed.
Before we leave the subject of the age of the manuscripts, one
more line of evidence remains to be mentioned. Soon after the
first discovery of the scrolls in 1947 became known, scholars began
to recall references to similiar discoveries in early Christian times.
The Masoretes, de Vaux reminds us, sometimes cite variant read¬
ings from a text they call the Jericho Pentateuch. The great third-
century theologian Origen compiled an edition of various Greek
versions of the Old Testament called the Hexapla. He mentions
as the source of one of his texts a discovery of manuscripts at or
near Jericho. The discovery is mentioned also by the fourth-century
church historian Eusebius and by Jerome. Eusebius says that it
occurred during the reign of the emperor Caracalla (211-217 a . d . ).
Origen was in Palestine in 217, and it was probably then that he
secured his manuscript. It was, of course, in Greek and was
found among other Greek manuscripts, but Hebrew manuscripts
also are said to have been found with them.
It is not impossible that Origen's manuscript came from one of
the caves that have recently been explored, but the discoveries in
The Evidence of Text and Language 117
the Wady Qumran do not indicate that the Judean covenanters
possessed Greek manuscripts. In any case, we do not know how
old the manuscripts that were discovered in Origen’s time were.
The letter of Timotheus concerning a discovery of manuscripts
at about 800 a.d. is mentioned in Chapter III. Naturally there has
been much discussion about the authenticity of the story told
by Timotheus and its possible relation to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Before the discovery of other caves it was natural to suppose that
the first cave might have been the one mentioned by Timotheus.
Now, however, even assuming a substantial degree of authenticity
for the story of Timotheus, we have no reason to identify the cave
involved in that incident with the one found in 1947 or with any
of the caves discovered later. The story merely underlines the
fact that manuscripts were often hidden in caves in ancient times.
Perhaps no more than this can be inferred from another refer¬
ence to a discovery of manuscripts in a cave, which is given by
the tenth-century Karaite Al-Qirqisani. In the second chapter of
his history of Jewish sects, just after speaking of the Sadducees, he
says, “Thereupon appeared the teaching of a sect called Maghar-
ians; they were called so because their books were found in a
cave” (the Arabic word for cave being maghara ). What relation,
if any, these Magharians may have had to the covenanters of the
Wady Qumran we must inquire in Chapter XIII.
Stanislav Segert has called attention to still another medieval
report of a discovery of ancient Hebrew manuscripts in a cave.
This is found in a letter written by a diplomat at the court of
the caliph of Cordova to the king of the Khazars in the tenth
century a.d. Speaking of the Chaldean conquest of Judah in
586 b . c ., the writer says that at that time the Jews “buried in a
cave the books of the law and the holy writings, and on this
account they prayed in the cave.” The letter continues:
And because of the books, they taught their sons to pray in the cave
evening and morning until the times were prolonged, and in the multi¬
tude of days they forgot and did not know concerning the cave why
they were accustomed to pray within it, but carried on the custom of
their fathers without knowing why. But at the end of many days there
1X 8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
arose a certain Jew, and he sought to know why; and he came to the
cave and found it full of books and brought them out from there. And
from that day until now they set their faces to learn the law. Thus our
fathers have told us as the men of old heard, hearing from the mouth
of one who heard, and these matters are ancient.
Here, as Segert points out, the circumstances and manner of
the discovery are entirely different from those related in the
letter of Timotheus. The story implies that the cave to which it
refers was much larger than any of the Wady Qumran caves.
While the incident has obviously no connection with the one of
which Timotheus tells, Segert suggests that this cave may be the
one in which the books of the Magharians were found, as related
by Al-Qirqisani. We have then at least two if not three independ¬
ent medieval accounts of discoveries of manuscripts in caves. Such
discoveries, Segert concludes, were probably frequent. Saul
Liebermann recalls a statement of the thirteenth-century Rabbi
Moses Taku that the Karaites of the eighth century used to hide
their heretical writings in the ground and then take them out and
claim that they had discovered ancient books. Such a charge by
their enemies might grow out of actual discoveries of old
manuscripts.
None of these literary references to manuscript discoveries has
any direct connection with the caves in which the Dead Sea Scrolls
were found. These accounts have therefore no real bearing upon
the time when the scrolls were left in the caves, to say nothing of
the age of the manuscripts before they were put there. They
are of interest merely as illustrations of an ancient custom.
The net result of all the investigation into the age of the manu¬
scripts found in the caves may be summarized very briefly. They
were all made before 70 a . d . Between the earliest and the latest
of them a considerable period intervened. The earliest of the bib¬
lical fragments may possibly go back as far as the third century
B.c. but are probably a century or more later. The oldest of the
more or less complete scrolls, the St Mark’s Isaiah scroll, prob¬
ably comes from a little before 100 b . c ., or possibly a little later.
The Manual of Discipline cannot be dated much later than 100 b . c .
The Evidence of Text and Language 119
From perhaps the last quarter of the first century b.c. comes the
manuscript of the Habakkuk Commentary. The Lamech Scroll,
the War scroll, the scroll of the Thanksgiving Psalms, and the
Hebrew University Isaiah scroll were all probably made during
the first half of the first century a.d. The innumerable fragments
of other manuscripts from the Wady Qumran lie scattered along
the way between 100 b . c ., or earlier, and 70 a . d . The Wady
Murabbaat fragments and other texts, of course, are later.
PART THREE
THE DATES OF COMPOSITION
VI
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk
Commentary: The Kittim
trLnjTTLnjTJTJTnnjTnjT^
Unless a manuscript comes from the author of the book himself,
its age does not indicate the time when the work it contains was
first written. When the date of the earliest extant copy is known,
we know that the book was in existence at that date, but we
cannot tell how long it had been in existence or how many copies
had been made in the meantime. The time when a book was first
composed must be determined by internal evidence.
The most important and specific internal evidence is that of
historical allusions. Before coming to this, however, one other
kind of internal evidence must be mentioned briefly. As a possible
indication of the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls we have considered
their language. To the degree that the author’s language has not
been altered by later copyists, the language of a book is also
a criterion of the original date of its composition. The biblical
texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls have had in general a longer time
tli an the non-biblical works to undergo alteration by copyists,
f Even in the non-biblical manuscripts some allowance must be
made for the possibility of changes in language, but on the whole
it may be assumed that there has been less change here than in
the biblical manuscripts. We may regard the language of the
non-biblical documents as approximately that of the authors
themselves.
xa3
124 The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Habakkuk Commentary exhibits many of the same linguistic
features as the St. Marks Isaiah scroll. Here too there are pecu¬
liarities of spelling and grammar for which parallels have been
found in Aramaic, in the Samaritan and rabbinic dialects of
Hebrew, and in early medieval Hebrew poems. Aside from these
particular points, the language is quite simple; it is drawn almost
entirely from the Old Testament, giving the impression, as van
der Ploeg says, that the author was not a highly educated man,
but knew the Hebrew language chiefly from reading the Bible.
Much the same features of language appear also in the Manual
of Discipline. Some words that seem to be late are used; at any
rate they have been known hitherto only in rabbinic or medieval
literature, simply because we have almost no other post-biblical
literature in Hebrew with which to compare them. Driver char¬
acterizes the Thanksgiving Psalms as “the work of a schokr play¬
ing in his study at composition in a dead language." The fairness of
this description is open to question; but in any case it gives no
indication of date, because Hebrew was already a dead language
for the Jewish people in general long before the Christian era.
The fact is that the language of these texts does not enable us
to tell when they were written. If we had no evidence of other
kinds, the apparently late expressions and forms might seem, as
they have seemed to some scholars, to indicate a date well down
in the Christian era. In broad terms we may describe the type
of Hebrew represented by the scrolls as intermediate between
the Hebrew of the latest Old Testament books and the rabbinic
dialect. Nothing in the language of the scrolls, in any case, is
necessarily inconsistent with composition in the early post-biblical
period down to 70 a.d., the latest possible date for the latest of the
manuscripts.
Far more exact and certain internal evidence of the time when
a book was written may be found in its historical allusions, if
there are such and if they are sufficiently specific. References to
reigning monarchs, to contemporary world powers, and to par¬
ticular persons and events often provide conclusive evidence for
dating ancient documents. In considering the Dead Sea Scrolls
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 125
from this point of view, we must of course examine each com¬
position separately, just as each manuscript has been examined
separately from the point of view of paleography.
It must be emphasized also that the arrangement of the manu¬
scripts in a chronological series indicates nothing as to the order
in which the books were originally composed. Early manuscripts
cannot contain late books, but late manuscripts may be simply new
copies of much older writings. An important example of this
fact is the relation of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Damascus Docu¬
ment. Because the manuscripts of this work found in the Old
Cairo genizah can be dated in the tenth century a.d., many
centuries later than the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is all too easy to
assume that the book itself was written later than the works
contained in the scrolls; but the fact that the manuscript of the
Manual of Discipline, for instance, is centuries older than the
manuscripts of the Damascus Document does not prove that
the Manual of Discipline is a more ancient composition than the
Damascus Document. The possibility that the Damascus Docu¬
ment may be as early as any of the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls
is now demonstrated by the fact that fragments of it were found
in the Qumran caves.
Of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, the one that is richest in historical
allusions is the Habakkuk Commentary. Particular groups, per¬
sons, and events appear in this text, though unfortunately in such
a vague and ambiguous way that they have suggested several
plausible arguments for quite different theories. Before accepting
any such theory we must ask whether it fits the references in the
text and fits them better than other theories do, and also whether
the persons and events referred to are mentioned as being in the
distant past, as recent, as contemporary, or as future. Sound
historical procedure requires further that we try to interpret the
historical references in this work on their own merits, without any
presupposition as to the relation between it and other documents.
Parallels in other texts will have to be considered later, but it
must not be taken for granted that the same term necessarily
means the same thing in two different documents.
i*6 The Dead Sea Scrolls
As has been said, the allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary are
not too specific. With one barely possible exception, no proper
names are given. In their place we have vague, mysterious desig¬
nations. They are not like the weird symbolic beasts and horns of
some of Daniel’s visions, but resemble rather the references to
"the king of the south” and "the king of the north” in Daniel 11.
Perhaps the persons and groups referred to are deliberately dis¬
guised in order to avoid censorship and persecution. To the mem-
Elliger exp lains the absence of proper names on the sup¬
position that the writer is speaking of his contemporaries. So
today, he says, we do not say "George VI” but "the king;” we do
not say “Pius XII” but "the pope.” The analogy is not wholly con¬
vincing. In the United States, at least, we often speak of our
President by name (or nickname!) instead of saying simply "the
President" Incidentally Elliger's illustration affords an instance
of the possibility of dating a text by historical allusions—he
evidently wrote it before the accession of Queen Elizabeth.
Before we examine the references in the Habakkuk Commentary
it may be well to sketch the background by reviewing briefly the
history of the times with which we are concerned. A fairly detailed
account is provided for us by the Jewish historian Josephus, who
lived in the first century a.d. We cannot, of course, expect the
author of our commentary to express the same attitudes toward
persons and events that we find in Josephus. On controversial
matters the two writers may represent opposite sides. It cannot
be assumed, moreover, that either account is entirely accurate.
Ignorance of the exact facts or prejudice may have distorted
the record. With Josephus we can sometimes compare material in
the apocryphal and rabbinic literature. A succinct summary of
much of the history appears in fairly transparent symbols in the
eleventh chapter of DanieL
For our purpose three major periods may be distinguished: the
pre-Maccabean, the Maccabean or Hasmonean, and the Roman.
Following the death of Alexander the Great and the division of
his empire, P alestine lay between two of the resulting kingdoms.
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 1*7
the kingdom of the Ptolemies in Egypt and the kingdom of the
Seleucids in Syria. For about a hundred years, coinciding almost
exactly with the third century b.c., Palestine was under the domin¬
ion of the Ptolemies. During the first third of the second century
(198-168 b.c. ), the Seleucids held Palestine. This brings us to
the end of the pre-Maccabean period.
The Maccabean period begins with the revolt of Judas
Maccabeus in 168 b.c. This achieved first religious and then
political independence. The Jewish kingdom that then emerged
was ruled by the descendants of Judas's brother Simon, who are
ca lled Hasmoneans. The terms Maccabean and Hasmonean are
not used uniformly by historians. For convenience we may here
consider them practically synonymous and so call the period
beginning with 168 b.c. the Maccabean or Hasmonean period.
This lasted until 63 b.c., when the Roman general Pompey annexed
Palestine to the Roman province of Syria, thus inaugurating the
Roman period of Palestinian history.
The first quarter-century of Roman domination was followed
by the reign of Herod the Great (37-4 B.C.), the pseudo¬
independent reigns of his sons, and the successive but hardly
successful administrations of several Roman procurators. The suf¬
fering and resentment of the Jews led to the armed revolt of
66 a j>., the bitter war with the Romans, and finally the capture of
Jerusalem and destruction of the temple by Titus in 70 ad. The
three periods within which we must try to place the historical
allusions of the Habakkuk Commentary are therefore the pre-
Maccabean (to 168 b.c. ), the Maccabean or Hasmonean ( 168-63),
and the Roman (63 B.C.--70 a.d.).
The archeological evidence, as we have seen, makes any date
later than 70 a.d. impossible for the composition of any of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. Since the manuscript of the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary, however, is one of the relatively late scrolls, a consider¬
able range of possibility is left open for the original composition
of the book. The author may have lived and written this com¬
mentary, so far as archeology and paleography can deter m i n e,
at any time before 70 ad.
12 g The Dead Sea Scrolls
Many of the references in the commentary have to do with the
internal affairs of the community. One term, however, clearly
refers to foreign invaders and conquerors. They are called the
Kittim. Who are the invaders designated by this term? Within
the chronological limits we have in view there are two possibilities.
The Kittim might be the Macedonians (Alexander or his suc¬
cessors, the Ptolemies and Seleucids), or they might be the Romans.
Can we tell whether the Macedonians or the Romans are referred
to in what is said about the Kittim?
The word Kittim (a plural form) occurs several times in the Old
Testament. In Genesis 10:4 the sons of Javan are said to have been
Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. The parallel text of I
Chronicles 1:7 is the same, except that it has Rodanim instead of
Dodanim (a good example of the way d and r are often confused
in Hebrew manuscripts). In Isaiah 23:1 the name Kittim occurs
at the beginning of an oracle against Tyre. While the King James
Version here reads Kittim (spelled Chittim), the Revised Standard
Version reads Cyprus, and this is clearly what is meant (so also
in verse 12 of the same chapter, in Jeremiah 2:10, and in Ezekiel
27:6). In Numbers 24:24, however, the meaning seems less specific;
accordingly the Revised Standard Version reads, “but ships shall
come from Kittim.” This verse is quoted in Daniel 11:30, “for
ships of Kittim shall come.” Here the context shows tfiat the
reference is to the Romans, and the Septuagint reads “ships of
the Romans.” The Aramaic Tar gum, in fact, reads “Romans” in
Numbers 24:24, but that can hardly be the meaning there. The
opening verse of I Maccabees says that Alexander the Great came
from the land of Kittim, and in 8:5 King Perseus of Macedon is
called king of Kittim. The Book of Jubilees also refers to the
Macedonians as Kittim (24:28!).
In view of all these facts it is reasonable to ask first whether
the Macedonians are not the foreign invaders called Kittim in
the Habakkuk Commentary. Several scholars hold that they are;
others, however, believe that the name here refers to the Romans,
as in Daniel 11:30. The theory that the Kittim are the Macedonians,
or more specifically the Seleucids of Syria; implies or at least
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 129
admits an earlier date of composition than the theory that they
are the Romans. The decision must rest on the interpretation of
details in the text. We must therefore consider what the com¬
mentator says about the Kittim and examine the interpretations
put on what he says by the advocates of the Macedonian and
Roman theories respectively. It will be sufficient here to quote
or summarize very briefly the passages referring to the Kittim.
For greater detail the translation of the Habakkuk Commentary
at the end of this volume may be consulted.
The Kittim are "swift and men of valor in battle." They “do not
believe in the statutes” of Israel’s God. “Over smooth ground they
go, smiting and plundering the cities of the earth.” They plan
evil and carry out their plans “with cunning and deceit." They
“trample the earth with their horses and with their animals; and
from afar they come, from the coasts of the sea, to devour all the
peoples like a vulture without being satisfied. And with wrath
and indignation, with hot ire and furious anger they deal with
all the peoples.” They “mock at great ones and despise honored
men; of kings and princes they make sport, and scoff at a multitude
of people.” They “despise the fortresses of the peoples and with
mockery laugh at them, and with a multitude of people they sur¬
round them to seize them, and in terror and dread they are
delivered into their hands; and they overthrow them because
of the iniquity of those who dwell in them.” Once the com¬
mentator speaks of “the rulers of the Kittim, who by the counsel
of a guilty house pass on, each before his fellow: their rulers
come, one after another, to destroy the earth." At another point
the commentator says, apparently referring to the Kittim, that
“they gather their wealth with all their booty like the fish of the
sea.” The reference is clearly to the Kittim when he adds that
“they sacrifice to their standards, and their weapons of war are the
object of their worship.” Again, they "parcel out their yoke and
their tribute, their food, upon all the peoples year by year, laying
waste many lands.” In their ruthless advance they “cause many
to perish by the sword—youths, men, and old men; women and
little children—and on the fruit of the womb they have no mercy.”
j 3 o The Dead Sea Scrolls
And finally, speaking of “the last priests of Jerusalem," the com¬
mentator says that they “assembled wealth and booty from the
spoil of the peoples, but at the end of days their wealth with their
spoil will be delivered into the hand of the army of the Kittim,
for they are the remainder of the peoples.”
Most of this might be said of any invading army, but there are
a few points that are more specific, and they have been seized
upon as evidence for one theory or the other. Much of the debate
has dealt with ambiguous expressions that may as plausibly be
connected with one nation as with another. Only a very few points
can really be accepted as unequivocal evidence; in fact—wc may
as well admit it at the outset—not one of them is definitely con¬
clusive. Otherwise, of course, there would have been no debate.
The most we can hope for is a preponderance of probability on
either side.
Let us hear first the exponents of the Macedonian theory. In
the clause, “over smooth ground they go,” the expression I have
translated “smooth ground" means literally something straight or
level. Talmon translates the clause, “by level road they will come "
Others render the word “plain." Delcor suggests that what is
meant is the high plateau east of the Dead Sea, between the Arnon
River and the city of Heshbon. This is mentioned, he believes,
because it was a part of the territory conquered by the Hasmonean
king, Alexander Janneus (103-76 b.c.), the particular reference
here being to a campaign of the Seleucid king Antiochus XII
(87-84 b.c.) against the Nabateans. There is nothing in the text to
substantiate such a specific allusion. The phrase “over smooth
ground” may, in fact, mean only “smoothly” or "unopposed.
The mention of the “cunning and deceit” of the Kittim has been
taken as pointing to the Seleucids because these qualities are often
attributed to them by I Maccabees and Josephus, whereas the
Romans are given credit for wise counsel and patience. Against
this, it is recalled that cunning and deceit were equally char¬
acteristic of the Roman general Pompey.
Another argument for the Macedonians as the power referred
to is drawn from the commentator’s statement that the Kittim
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 131
"trample the earth with their horses and with their animals." E.
Stauffer and others take the “ani m als” to be the war elephants
of which the Seleucid kings were so proud that they had them
pictured on some of their coins. Dupont-Sommer replies with dry
irony that the elephants are indeed a weighty argument, but the
Hebrew language has a word for “elephant.” Our commentator
says “horses" when he means horses; why should he not say
“elephants" if that is what he means? The noun translated “a nim als"
is actually used here in the singular; it is intended, says Dupont-
Sommer, in a collective sense to include all kinds of animals
used by the armies. Of course the singular could also be used in
a collective sense for elephants.
Elliger agrees that Stauffer’s elephants cannot carry the load
he puts on them. Michel, on the other hand, still insists that some
kind of animals used in battle must be meant, and these could
only be elephants; but it is quite possible that the word refers
to beasts of burden accompanying the army. Only if other and
more conclusive evidence shows that the Seleucids are con¬
templated have we any reason to think of elephants at all in this
connection. There is nothing to show that the “animals” were any
more characteristic of the Kittim in particular than were the
horses. These too, as a matter of fact, are taken by Michel to
indicate the Seleucids. Citing the frequent references in I Mac¬
cabees to the formidable numbers of the Seleucid cavalry, he
observes that cavalry are not mentioned in connection with the
Roman campaign of 63 b.c. against Judah. Perhaps the horses
are stronger evidence for the Seleucid hypothesis than the
elephants.
The statement “from afar they come, from the coasts [or isles]
of the sea,” is applied to the Seleucids also. Josephus says that
two of the Seleucid kings had mercenaries from “the islands.” In
I Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is said to have sent letters
from “the isles of the sea.” This is not very impressive evidence.
As a matter of fact, the noun used in the commentary does not
necessarily mean “isles.” It is often used for coastal regions. In
Daniel and I Maccabees it may be that the islands, not the coasts.
13 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
of the Mediterranean are meant The reference in the commentary
is much too vague and general, in any case, to be restricted to any
particular people or event
Other allusions are equally indefinite. The description of the
ruthlessness of the Kittim would be appropriate for the Mace¬
donians or the Romans. The wrath and fury with which the Kittim
are said to deal with their victims, and even more their insolence
and mockery, are stressed by Michel as fitting the Seleucids much
better than the Romans. The boastful, derisive words of Antiochus
Epiphanes and his generals are often mentioned in I Maccabees
and Daniel. The haughty pride of the Romans is well known,
but it does not seem to have been particularly evident in their
treatment of Judah in 63 b.c. Michel suggests that the “great ones”
and “honored men” whom the Kittim despised may have been
the Jewish priests and elders who were insolently mocked by
the Macedonian general Nicanor in 161 b.c.; the “kings and
princes” of whom the Kittim "made sport” may have been the
kings of Egypt and the lesser rulers of the East who were treated
with scorn by Antiochus Epiphanes. All this may be true if the
Kittim are the Seleucids, but it gives us no positive evidence to
that effect.
A rather curious argument is derived by Michel from an apparent
contradiction which he sees between the statement of the com¬
mentary that the Kittim “scoff at a multitude of people” and the
statement a few lines later that they surround and seize fortresses
“with a multitude of people.” In the former reference he finds
an implication that the Kittim routed forces more numerous than
their own, whereas the latter seems to h i m to indicate that they
outnumbered those who opposed them. In the one case he sees
an allusion to the victory of Antiochus Epiphanes over Egyptian
armies much larger than his own; in the other he sees a reference
to the crushing numerical superiority of the Seleucid armies in
the Macedonian wars. The assumption that the “multitude” implies
in either place a significant numerical superiority or inferiority
is quite gratuitous.
The commentator says that the rulers of the Kittim “pass on, each
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 133
before his fellow: their rulers come, one after another, to destroy
the earth.’ 7 Delcor applies this to the Seleucid kings at about the
end of the second century b.c., quoting the statement of Bouch6-
Leclercq that the history of that period is nothing but "a monot¬
onous series of vicissitudes.” It is possible, as a few scholars do,
to take the verb in this passage as a causative form, meaning
not “pass on” but “cause to pass on.” With this interpretation,
which seems to me quite unlikely, it has been supposed that the
reference is to the deposition and replacement of one high priest
after another by the Seleucid kings. Other at least equally plausible
interpretations have been proposed, as we shall see.
It would help to identify the Kittim if we could tell what was
meant by the “guilty house” by whose counsel their rulers “pass
on." It has been taken to mean the pro-Hellenistic family of the
Tobiads, in response to whose appeal Antiochus Epiphanes in
175 b.c. came to Jerusalem and took it by storm, slaughtered many
of the Oniads, the pro-Egyptian adversaries of the Tobiads,
plundered the temple, and stopped for three and a half years the
daily sacrifice. This crisis and the parties concerned engage our
attention further in Chapter VIII; meanwhile we can say only
that there is nothing here which points specifically to the Tobiads
as the “guilty house.”
A bit of “anti-Syrian polemic” is seen by Stauffer in the state¬
ment that the Kittim “gather their wealth like the fish of the sea.”
He compares this with a passage in the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs, which speaks of kings who will “swallow men like
fishes." It is by no means certain, however, that this passage refers
to the Seleucid kings of Syria. In any case, there is no necessary
connection between the reference to fishes in the Testaments and
the expression used in the commentary, which has to do not with
swallowing fishes but with gathering them in nets, and is obviously
suggested by the text of Habakkuk.
Few passages in the whole composition have aroused as much
debate as the statement that the Kittim “sacrifice to their standards,
and their weapons of war are the object of their worship.” This
immediately calls to mind the veneration of the military stand-
The Dead Sea Scrolls
ards by the Roman armies; Stauffer argues, however, that the
worship of the standards was practiced by the Seleucid armies.
He cites the use of the same Hebrew word for “signs” or "stand¬
ards” in Psalm 74:4, 9, where he thinks there is a reference to the
policies of Antiochus Epiphanes.
Rowley also accepts this interpretation. He admits that the
worship of standards is not recorded either for the time of
Antiochus or for the republican period of Roman history, but he
considers it more probable in the former than in the latter period.
Since Antiochus Epiphanes claimed to be an incarnation of Zeus,
Rowley thinks that the banners of his armies may have borne a
likeness of the king as Zeus. Delcor argues that the Assyrians,
Persians, and Egyptians as well as the Hellenistic armies practiced
the cult of the standards. There is actually no evidence sufficiently
clear and specific to demonstrate the practice of sacrificing to
the standards before 70 a.d. The weight of probability, however,
seems greater for the early Roman period than for the pre-
Maccabean or the Maccabean period, the time of the Seleucid
kingdom.
Michel even doubts that there is any reference here to a real
cult of the standards: the word translated "standards" means
literally “signs” and does not necessarily refer to the military
standards at all; if it does, the “sacrifice” may not be meant more
literally than the fisherman’s sacrificing to his net and burning
incense to his seine, of which Habakkuk speaks in the passage
the commentator is here expounding. A reference to the Roman
practice of sacrificing to the standards, one must admit, is not
certain here; none the less, it seems so inherently probable as to
be almost certain.
An “exactor of tribute,” mentioned in Daniel 11:20, was sent to
Palestine in 166 b.c. by Seleucus IV, the successor of Antiochus
Epiphanes. The payment of tribute to the Seleucid rulers ceased
in 141. The reference to annual tribute in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary seems to Stauffer to indicate a date between these two
events. On the assumption that the Kittim are the Seleucids, this
seems probable enough; those who hold that the Kittim are the
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 135
Romans, however, naturally see here a reference to the “yoke”
and "tribute” imposed by the Romans on conquered peoples. The
reference is too general to prove anything one way or the other.
In the statement "and on the fruit of the womb they have no
mercy” Delcor sees a specific reference to a campaign of Ptolemy
VIII and his mother in Palestine in 100 b.c. A statement of Josephus
about this campaign is thought by Delcor to refer to atrocities
committed by Ptolemy against pregnant women, and he thinks
that the Habakkuk Commentary alludes to the same atrocities
by distinguishing between children and the fruit of the womb.
Elliger rightly rejects these extraordinary interpretations of both
Josephus and the commentary. Michel sees in this passage a
specific reference to the earlier frightful massacre of Jews by
Antiochus Epiphanes when he returned from Egypt in 168 b.c.
Here again, however, the reference is too general to be used as
evidence. Neither the Seleucids nor the Romans had any monop¬
oly on massacres and atrocities.
The mention of "the last priests of Jerusalem," whose "wealth
with their spoil will be delivered into the hand of the army of
the Kittim,” is a challenge to interpreters. Vermes maintains that
only the warrior-priests of the Hasmonean dynasty can be meant
by the “last priests of Jerusalem.” The Hellenizing priests of the
pre-Maccabean period, he says, would not have attacked their
Macedonian allies and patrons. On the other hand, the later
priests of the time of Herod and the time of the Roman proc¬
urators were not warriors, and the high priests of 66-70 aj>. are
excluded by archeological evidence. All the Hasmonean high
priests, however, attacked neighboring peoples and amassed
wealth by despoiling them. At the same time, as we see presently,
Verm&s believes that the Kittim are the Romans.
The last statement of the commentary about the Kittim—“for
they are the remainder of the peoples”—is compared by Michel
with the representation of the Seleucid kingdom under Antiochus
Epiphanes in the book of Daniel, where it appears as the last and
most extraordinary human kingdom before the final catastrophe
and the resurrection. Once more the possibility of such an appli-
136 The Dead Sea Scrolls
cation shows that the reference is not necessarily to the Romans,
but it gives no positive ground for supposing that the Seleucids
are meant.
As a final argument for identifying the Kittim with the Seleucids,
Michel adduces the condemnation of idolatry by the commentary.
In the Roman period, he says, this was not a serious danger for
the Jews, but it was in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The
Kittim, he adds, were themselves idolaters and promoters of
idolatry. The Romans were pagans but allowed the Jews religious
freedom; Antiochus Epiphanes proscribed and tried to extirpate
the Jewish religion. Unfortunately for this argument the com¬
mentator does not mention the Kittim in connection with idolatry.
His very general denunciation of idolaters is only what the text
of Habalckuk seems to require.
The whole case for the identification of the Kittim with the
Seleucid armies of the pre-Maccabean or the Maccabean period
boils down to little or nothing. Perhaps all the allusions to the
Kittim may, with a little stretching at a few points, fit the Seleu¬
cids; but there is nothing in any of them that clearly points to the
Seleucids rather than to the Romans. The most that can be main¬
tained is that the Kittim may be the Seleucids if other evidence
clearly indicates that the commentary was written before the
Romans could have been in the picture.
Are there any stronger reasons for believing that the Kittim of
the Habakkuk Commentary are the Romans? The commentator’s
statement, “over smooth ground they go,” Dupont-Sommer thinks,
is a reference to coming by sea. The word I have translated “smooth
ground" he renders “(liquid?) plain.” Even if it were certain that
Romans were meant here and that they actually came by sea to
Palestine, this interpretation of the Hebrew word would be
decidedly questionable.
The statement “from afar they come, from the coasts [or isles]
of the sea,” which Stauffer applies to the Seleucids, may equally
well or better be applied to the Romans. Dupont-Sommer goes
somewhat too far, however, in claiming that the Romans came from
the isles of the sea but the Seleucids did not If the reference is
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 137
to the Macedonians in general, from Alexander on, they may
be said to have come from the region of the Aegean. Further¬
more, as we have seen, the noun commonly taken to mean “isles*'
can just as well mean “coasts” or “coastal regions.” If it refers
here to the coasts of Phoenicia and Philistia, as it sometimes does
in the Old Testament, Dupont-Sommer's argument that the Mace¬
donians came by land and not by sea has no force. The language
of the commentary applies no more definitely to the Romans than
to the Seleucids.
The statement of Habakkuk 1:8 that the horsemen of the enemy
“fly like a vulture” is applied by the commentary to the Kittim.
Since the word for “vulture” is often translated “eagle,” Dupont-
Sommer reminds us that the eagle was the emblem of the Roman
legions. This fact may have been in the commentator’s mind if
he was thinking of the Romans, but the connection is not close
enough to make the reference certain. What the commentator
especially stresses, as a matter of fact, is the insatiable rapacity
of the Kittim, and this, as Michel says, is characteristic of the
vulture rather than of the eagle.
Where the commentator mentions “the rulers of the Kittim,”
Dupont-Sommer argues that the word for rulers is equivalent to
the Roman imperator, whereas the Seleucid rulers were called
kings. In Psalm 105:20, however, the same word is applied to
the Egyptian pharaoh, and elsewhere it is used in a very general
sense.
The commentator's account of the contemptuous, mocking
attitude of the Kittim as they surround and seize “the fortresses
of the peoples” is taken by Elliger as an allusion to the capture of
Jerusalem by Pqmpey in 63 b.c. Michel protests, as we have seen,
that the Romans at this time displayed no such attitude toward
the Jews. Dupont-Sommer, while finding elsewhere in the com¬
mentary a reference to Pompey’s conquest, thinks that here the
treatment of several Palestinian cities by Gabinius in 57 b.c. is
meant. Once more the reference is not sufficiently specific to
afford evidence of one date or period rather than another.
We have found unconvincing an attempt to place in the Mac-
i 3 8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
cabean or Hasmonean period the statement that the rulers of the
Kittim “by the counsel of a guilty house pass on, each before his
fellows” and “come, one after another, to destroy the earth.” Not
one but several interpretations of this passage as referring to the
Romans have been put forward. Dupont-Sommer sees here a
clear allusion to the Roman civil wars that began in 49 b.c. and
ended in 29 b.c. One after another, the contenders in these wars
passed on and disappeared. The year 41 b.c., Dupont-Sommer
believes, is the time referred to especially in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary. The whole Roman world was then anxious about the
political situation, and the Parthian invasion from the east was
imminent.
Another interpretation is proposed by van der Ploeg. He believes
that the reference is to the military campaigns of the Roman
generals who were sent out by the Senate, one after another, to
conquer the world. Barth&emy similarly sees here an allusion
to the Roman proconsuls in Asia. The procurators who governed
Judea in the first century a.d. are thought by Ben-Zion Katz to be
the rulers of the Kittim. Vermes in 1951 thought of the rapid suc¬
cession of Roman emperors between 68 and 70 a.d.; he has since
abandoned this identification, however, having been constrained
by both archeological and literary evidence to adopt an earlier
date for the composition of the commentary. The very multiplicity
of theories shows that none of them can be regarded as conclusive.
A suggestion that the “guilty house" by whose counsel their
rulers “pass on” was the pre-Maccabean Tobiad family has been
noted. Several scholars see here a reference to the Roman Senate.
It might be easier to choose between these interpretations if we
knew what was meant by the “counsel” of the guilty house, but
this is not clear.
It is not surprising that the commentator’s reference to “their
wealth with all their booty" is understood by more than one scholar
as an allusion to the enormous booty amassed by the Romans. But
again, other invading armies in other periods of history have
acquired abundant spoils of war.
Our attention has already been drawn to the statement of the
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 139
commentary that the Kittim "sacrifice to their standards, and their
weapons of war are the object of their worship.” When I first
read the commentary at Jerusalem in 1948, this was one of the
points that made me feel that the Kittim were the Romans. When
the text was published Dupont-Sommer promptly seized on this
point as supporting his identification of the Kittim with the
Romans. We have considered the efforts of a few scholars to
prove that the Seleucids also practiced the worship of the stand¬
ards. Segal, who formerly identified the Kittim with the Seleucids,
has since been convinced by the reference to the cult of the
standards that the Kittim are the Romans.
The principal question of fact in this connection is whether
the Roman soldiers not only venerated their standards but actually
offered sacrifices to them before the time of the empire. The only
explicit attestation of this practice is given by Josephus in connec¬
tion with the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 a.d. An excellent
survey of the evidence on this question is given by G. R. Driver,
who concludes that the incident related by Josephus is the earliest
occasion to which the commentator on Habakkuk may be sup¬
posed to refer. Even though the archeological evidence con¬
clusively rules out a reference to this incident in the Habakkuk
Commentary, Driver’s argument is very impressive. He has shown
at least that the practice of sacrificing to the standards before the
time of the empire cannot be demonstrated. It may well be, there¬
fore, that the reference in the Habakkuk Commentary is the
earliest extant attestation of this practice. That Roman soldiers
may have sacrificed to their standards during the time of the
republic (Le., before 31 b.c), or during the century between
30 b.c. and 70 a.d., is not to be thought impossible merely because
it is not demonstrable. At any rate, while not as definite as we might
wish, this is the most specific point yet encountered in support of
the contention that the Kittim in the Habakkuk Commentary are
the Romans.
Dupont-Sommer argues that “the last priests of Jerusalem” were
the two brothers, Aristobulus H (67-63 b.c.) and Hyrcanus II
(63-40), with whom the Hasmonean dynasty came to an end.
140 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Others also, including Brownlee, have adopted this view. Elliger,
however, sees no reason to single out these two priests in particular.
He believes that the reference is to the whole priesthood. After
saying that the wealth of "the last priests of Jerusalem" will be
delivered to the Kittim, the commentator adds, “for they are the
remainder of the peoples.” Both Dupont-Sommer and Elliger
explain this statement as meaning that the Kittim are the last
people who are to play a part on the stage of history namely,
the Romans. This may be correct, but the commentator, when¬
ever he lived, might well have regarded the dominant world
power of his day as the last in the series of empires before the
end of history. This has always been characteristic of the
apocalyptic point of view, and while the Habakkuk Commentary
is not an apocalyptic work, its point of view has much in common
with that of the apocalyptic literature.
It thus becomes plain that the references to the Kittim are too
general to point clearly and unmistakably to any one nation. Any
interpretation required by other evidence concerning the historical
setting of the commentary is possible. The one allusion that most
definitely favors one nation more than another is the reference to
the cult of the standards. Other things being equal, this seems
to indicate the Romans rather than the Seleudds.
If we may then at least tentatively accept the identification
of the Kittim with the Romans, it does not necessarily follow that
the commentary was written after the conquest of Palestine by
the Romans. We must still ask whether the commentator thinks
of the Roman invasion as in the distant past, as recent, as con¬
temporary, or as still future. Segal holds that there is no reference
in the commentary to the conquest of Judah, but only to the sub¬
jugation of other nations by the Romans. The plunder of the last
priests of Jerusalem has not yet been delivered to the Kittim.
Segal even believes that the descriptions of the Kittim in the
commentary are not based on first-hand acquaintance with the
Romans, but on hearsay and on what is said in Habakkuk about
the Chaldeans. Elliger vehemently rejects this judgment. The
commentator, he feels, speaks with the vividness and passion of
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk Commentary 141
one who has experienced the terrible things of which he tells.
Other scholars believe that for the commentator the Roman
invasion of Judah is still in the future, but not necessarily as distant
as Segal supposes.
The use of the Hebrew tenses is stressed by van der Ploeg. Past
events, he says are indicated in the commentary by Hebrew verbs
in the “perfect” tense, which indicates completed action. The
acts of the Kittim, however, are indicated either by the “imperfect”
tense, wliich usually (though not necessarily) refers to the future,
or else by the active participle. The most natural inference is that
the Romans were not yet in Judea when the commentary was writ¬
ten, but that they were expected to come soon. Verm&s accepts
van der Ploeg’s interpretation of the verbs and agrees with him
that the commentary was written shordy before Pompey’s coming
to Jerusalem in 63 b.c. The plundering of Israel’s neighbors by
the Hasmonean warrior-priests has been going on for generations,
but their spoil will soon be taken from them by the Romans.
Dupont-Sommer, however, rejects van der Ploeg’s argument.
The imperfect tense, he points out, is regularly used for repeated
or continuous action in the present or even in the past. This is
quite true, and verbs in the imperfect tense in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary often clearly refer to the present. The use of the participle
too, says Dupont-Sommer, refers not to the future but to the
present. Again one must agree that this is sometimes clearly the
case. The use of the Hebrew tenses may but does not necessarily
imply that the Kittim have not yet arrived.
The impression of vividness and immediacy in the descriptions,
which Elliger emphasizes as against Segal, is cited also by Dupont-
Sommer to confirm his interpretation. He stresses also the severe,
violent tone of denunciation in the allusions to the Kittim, as con¬
trasted with the favorable attitude toward the Romans expressed
in I Maccabees. The inference is that when the commentary was
written Judea had already suffered severely at the hands of the
Romans.
On the other hand, not everything that is said of the Kittim
seems to fit what happened at the time of Pompey’s conquest of
!42 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Judea. Michel observes that nothing indicates a particularly swift
advance of the Roman armies; that Pompey’s coming was not the
execution of a deliberate military plan but a response to an invita¬
tion, whereas the commentary says of the Kittim that with de¬
liberation all their planning is to work evil, and with cunning and
deceit they proceed with all the peoples"; and finally, that the Ro¬
mans treated the Jews with severity but not with insolence or
signal cruelty during the first decades of their rule in Palestine. All
these facts are easily understood if we suppose that when the com¬
mentary was written the Romans were known and feared but
had not yet intervened in Palestine.
Reviewing all the evidence, Elliger comes to the conclusion that
the commentary was written after 65 b.c., when a Roman legate
first came to Judea to settle the quarrel between Hyrcanus and
Aristobulus, but before the reign of Herod. I see no good reason
for putting it quite that late. So far as the references to the Kittim
are concerned, it seems to me most probable that the Romans are
meant, but that the commentary was written some time before
63 b.c. A final decision, however, cannot be reached apart from
the other historical allusions in the commentary.
VII
Historical Allusions in the Habakkuk
Commentary: Dramatis Personae
mjTJinnruT-njanjTJTJir^^
In addition to the references to the international situation, much
is said in the Habakkuk Commentary about parties and individuals
within the Jewish nation. There is practically no point of attach¬
ment between these references and the others. They allude to
individuals and groups not mentioned in the passages about the
Kittim, and in turn they do not mention the Kittim. The only
exception is the statement, already considered, that the spoil of
the last priests of Jerusalem will be given up to the Kittim, and
this has no clear connection with the parties and persons men¬
tioned elsewhere.
The identification of these individuals and groups is something
like the solution of a picture puzzle. The problem is to fit what the
commentary says about the characters into what is known of Jew¬
ish history from other sources. The fact that with only one or two
barely possible exceptions no personal names are given makes the
choice all the more difficult.
The various characters interact in such a way that they cannot
be separately identified and placed in different historical periods
or situations. If possible, we must find one set of circumstances
and one group of persons that will correspond to everything said
about all of them. If this cannot be done we may have to consider
the possibility that not one but several situations and sets of
The Dead Sea Scrolls
characters are referred to, but this should be contemplated only
as a last resort. The best procedure, therefore, seems to be to get
all the dramatis personae on the stage at once, look at all of them
together, and see whether we can recognize them and the scene
they are playing. Our picture puzzle thus takes on something of
the nature of a charade.
The hero of the drama is a man called “the teacher of righteous¬
ness.” The title “teacher of righteousness”—or, as it may equally
well be translated, "righteous teacher”—is probably derived from
several passages in the Old Testament. The exact term docs not
occur in any of them, but there are two references to a teacher of
falsehood (or false teacher), with whom the teacher of righteous¬
ness in the commentary may be consciously contrasted. One of
these is Isaiah 9:14-15:
So the Lord cut off from Israel head and tail,
palm branch and reed in one day—
The elder and honored man is the head,
and the prophet who teaches falsehood is the tail.
The other reference to a "teacher of falsehood” is in the book of
Habakkuk itself (2:18):
What profit is an idol
when its maker has shaped it,
a metal image, a teacher of falsehood?
The earliest approach to the title “teacher of righteousness” in
the Old Testament is Joel 2:23:
“Be glad, O sons of Zion,
and rejoice in YHWH your God;
for he has given the early rain for your vindication,
he has poured down for you abundant rain,
the early and the latter rain, as before.”
The phrase here rendered (following the Revised Standard Ver¬
sion) “for your vindication” is translated in the King James Ver¬
sion “moderately,” and in the American Standard Version “in
Dramatis Personae 145
just measure,” with a marginal note, "Or, in (or, for ) righteous¬
ness .” The Hebrew word for “early rain” in the third and last lines
of the verse is exactly the same as the word for "teacher,” both in
spelling and in pronunciation. The whole expression, “the early
rain for your vindication," could therefore be translated literally
(though it would make nonsense of the passage), “the teacher
for righteousness.” This makes possible a play on words, and in¬
deed some confusion in the interpretation of the text. Such inter¬
preters as the author of the Habakkuk Commentary do not mind
giving words and phrases meanings that have nothing to do with
the context, provided they suit the interpreter’s immediate inter¬
est.
The same possibility of confusion appears also in Hosea 10:12:
“For it is the time to seek the Lord,
that he may come and rain righteousness upon you.”
It might seem that the context here, with its references to sowing,
reaping, and plowing, would prevent any interpreter from mis¬
understanding the words “rain righteousness.” It is possible, how¬
ever, to translate “teach righteousness," and in this case the Latin
Vulgate of Jerome, which is the official version of the Catholic
Church, actually translates, “when he comes who will teach you
justice” (cum venerit qui docebit vos fustitiam). The Syriac ver-
sian similarly reads, “until he comes who will show you his right¬
eousness.” This should be sufficient to acquit the writer of the
Habakkuk Commentary of any charge of mere ignorance of He¬
brew. Both he and his predecessors, including the teacher of
righteousness himself, probably connected the title with these
passages in the Old Testament. Weis has observed that the ninth-
century Karaite Daniel al-Qumusi identified the “former rain for
righteousness” in Joel 2:23 with the prophet Elijah, and in this
connection cited also Hosea 10:12 as well as Malachi 3:24.
Other persons are mentioned in connection with the teacher of
righteousness. The commentator speaks of “those who acted treach¬
erously with the man of the He, for they did not heed the words of
The Dead Sea Scrolls
the teacher of righteousness from the mouth of God.'* Nothing is
said here to show who the “man of the lie” may be, but there is
more about him later.
The commentator goes on to speak of treacherous men “who do
not believe when they hear all the things that are coming upon
the last generation from the mouth of the priest into whose heart
God put wisdom to explain all the words of his servants the
prophets." The similarity of the language used with reference to
the teacher of righteousness and the priest strongly suggests that
they are the same man. Their identity, in fact, seems to be es¬
tablished by another passage, which says of the teacher of right¬
eousness what is here said of the priest. Habakkuk’s words, “that
he may run who reads it," are applied to “the teacher of righteous¬
ness, to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of
his servants the prophets."
The teacher of righteousness, then, was a priest who was be¬
lieved by his disciples to be endowed with power to interpret the
words of the prophets. We are not told, as Elliger observes, that
he was inspired also to interpret the law, but since there are many
indications that his followers considered themselves the only true
observers of the law, it is fairly safe to infer that his authority was
recognized in this area also.
The commentary says, "Into the hand of his elect God will
deliver the judgment of all the nations, and by their chastisement
all the wicked among his people will be punished." Dupont-
Sommer takes “his elect” here to mean the teacher of righteousness,
and therefore holds that the teacher of righteousness was expected
to be the agent of the last judgment, first upon the nations and
then upon Israel. While the form of the Hebrew word would nor¬
mally be taken as singular, one of the peculiarities of spelling in
the Dead Sea Scrolls is that the singular and plural forms of nouns
cannot be distinguished when they have the possessive suffix of the
third person masculine. Here the noun “elect” is probably plural,
agreeing with “his people” in the preceding clause, and refers not
to the teacher of righteousness but to his followers. If so, their
chastisement” probably means “the chastisement [of the wicked]
Dramatis Personae 147
by them." Not the teacher of righteousness but his followers will
execute God’s judgment on "the wicked among his people ” This
passage must therefore be left out of account in our attempt to
get a clear picture of the teacher of righteousness.
Our list of dramatis personae is enlarged by a group cryptically
designated as "the house of Absalom/’ which is mentioned in con¬
nection with a conflict of some kind between the teacher of right¬
eousness and the man of the lie. Explaining the expression in
Habakkuk 1:13, “the swallowing by the wicked of a man more
righteous than he,” the commentator says, “This means the house
of Absalom and the men of their party, who kept silence at the
chastisement of the teacher of righteousness and did not help him
against the man of the lie, who rejected the law in the midst of
their whole congregation.”
What is meant by the “house of Absalom” is one of the most
warmly debated points in the discussions of the historical allu¬
sions in the Habakkuk Commentary. Several questions are in¬
volved. One is the meaning of the expression, "the chastisement of
the teacher of righteousness.” The word I have translated as
“chastisement” may mean reproof, rebuke, refutation, proof, con¬
demnation, or punishment. Only the context can indicate what it
means in any particular place. Elliger argues that the phrase “by
their chastisement,” which occurs a few lines before this, led the
commentator to speak here of "the chastisement of the teacher of
righteousness.”
The fact that the former phrase is associated with the word
"judgment” seems to Elliger to imply that there was a legal trial,
in which a charge was made against the teacher of righteousness
and sustained by the court. He therefore interprets the expressions
used here to mean that the teacher of righteousness was con¬
demned in court because the house of Absalom abandoned him
and the man of the lie made an improper use of the law. If true,
this affords a specific item in the biography of the teacher of right¬
eousness that should help us to identify him. Unfortunately there
is not much to support Elliger’s inference.
Assuming the me anin g "chastisement” or the like, we ca nn ot
14 8 The Dead Sea ScroUs
be entirely sure whether the teacher of righteousness was the
chastiser or the chastised. In other words (speaking academically,
and imposing upon Hebrew the categories of Indo-European gram¬
mar), is this a subjective or an objective genitive? I have said that
in the previous passage "their chastisement” probably means
“chastisement by them”; in other words, I take the possessive
suffix there as a subjective genitive. Here the fact that the teacher
of righteousness needed help suggests that perhaps he was the
one who was chastised, yet the meaning may l>e that he was ad¬
ministering chastisement when he was not supported by the “house
of Absalom.” Brownlee originally interpreted the genitive as ob¬
jective; more recently, however, he has adopted the view that the
teacher of righteousness was active rather than passive in the mat¬
ter. But, as Reicke points out, the teacher of righteousness appears
all through the document as one who is persecuted, and this fits
the expression of Habakkuk that is here expounded, "the swallow¬
ing by the wicked of a man more righteous than he.” Probably,
therefore, the man of the lie was the chastiser, and the teacher of
righteousness was the one chastised.
What is meant by the word I have translated as “party” is an¬
other debated point. Elliger argues that it means either a deliber¬
ative assembly or the result of deliberation, a decision, sentence,
or plan. For the meaning "council” or “deliberative assembly” he
cites three other passages where the same word is used. In one
of them the meaning “party” fits the context better, and I so trans¬
late it In another what is meant is probably the council or as¬
sembly of the community, as in the Manual of Discipline. In the
other passage adduced by Elliger the occurrence of the word it¬
self depends upon his own conjectural reconstruction of the text;
my translation presupposes a different Hebrew word that seems
to me more probable.
For the meaning “decision” or "plan,” Elliger refers to a passage
about the Kittim, which I translate, “and with deliberation all their
planning is to work evil.” The word under discussion here is the
one there translated “deliberation”; it does not mean, however,
the decision of a deliberative assembly but the deliberate inten-
Dramatis Personae 149
tion or conscious plan of the conquering Kittim. In the passage
with which we are now concerned the word “plan” would not be
jippropriat 0 , yet what is meant may be something not very differ¬
ent The expression I render “the men of their party” may mean
“the men of their persuasion" or “the men of their way of thinking”
Altogether, the argument for an allusion to a legal trial in this
passage is not convincing.
What then is implied by the expression “house of Absalom"?
Are we to suppose that a man actually named Absalom is in view,
or is the name used in a symbolic fashion? It has frequently been
pointed out that no other person in this document is indicated by
his real name. The nearest analogy to the use of the name Absalom
is the use of the name Kittim, and this would suggest that Absalom
here is not the real name of a man. Several interpretations of the
passage that have been offered, however, presuppose that a his¬
torical person named Absalom is meant, and several men of that
name have been suggested as the person referred to by the com¬
mentator. To me it seems altogether unlikely that a particular
group would here be named explicitly, while the identity of all the
other characters in the drama is veiled and obscure.
The commentator implies that the house of Absalom should have
helped the teacher of righteousness in his conflict with the man
of the lie. It may therefore be true that some of the followers of
the teacher of righteousness are called the house of Absalom be¬
cause they deserted him. If so, not all of his followers can be
meant. He had at least a sufficient number of faithful disciples left
to carry on his movement and preserve its literature. Later the
commentary speaks of “all the doers of the law in the house of
Judah, whom God will rescue from the house of judgment because
of their labor and their faith in the teacher of righteousness.”
Both Del Medico and Brownlee take the designation “doers of
the law in the house of Judah” to mean that Judah was the name
of the teacher of righteousness. It is much more probable that the
house of Judah means the Jewish nation, and “the doers of the law
in the house of Judah” are a group within the nation distinguished
from those who do not keep the law. The “house of judgment” is
jgo The Dead Sea Scrolls
supposed by Del Medico to mean the Roman courts. This expres¬
sion occurs again, however, in a passage where it clearly does not
mean a group that pronounces judgment but one that is to be
in the teacher of righteousness"
is believed by some to mean “their fidelity to the teacher of right¬
eousness." As Barth 61 emy points out, however, the teacher of right¬
eousness is an inspired interpreter of the Scriptures, and it is there¬
fore necessary to believe what he teaches. The use of the preposi¬
tion “in" with the noun further establishes this meaning, in He¬
brew as in English idiom. One may recall also the condemnation
of those who “do not believe when they hear all the things that
are coming upon the last generation from the mouth of the priest
into whose heart God put wisdom to explain all the words of his
servants the prophets."
And now, enter the villain!—unless, indeed, he has already en¬
tered as “the man of the lie.” Here he appears under his usual
designation, “the wicked priest ” The person of whom Habakkuk
says, “Woe to him who heaps up, but it is not his own," is said
by the commentary to be “the wicked priest, who was named ac¬
cording to the truth when he first took office; but when he had
begun to rule in Israel, his heart was lifted up, and he forsook God
and betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth. He plundered and
assembled the wealth of men of violence who rebelled against
God. He took the wealth of peoples, adding to himself iniquity and
guilt; and ways of abominations he wrought, in all impurity of
uncleanness.”
Elliger makes the appealing suggestion that the term “the wicked
priest" ( hak-kohen ha-raSd ) may be a deliberate caricature of
the official title, “the chief priest ( hak-kohen ha-ro’S). This may
very well be true; if so, it indicates that the. man so designated is
to be sought among the high priests.
The passage just quoted is the first explicit reference to "the
wicked priest” in the extant portions of the commentary, but he
was probably mentioned earlier in a part of the first column that
has been lost, just before the first reference to the teacher of
judged and severely punished.
The reference to "their faith
Dramatis Personae 151
righteousness. This is assumed in the reconstruction of the text
underlying my translation. It is suggested by the fact that the com¬
mentator at that point is interpreting Habakkuk’s complaint that
“the wicked man encompasses the righteous man.”
The expression “named according to the truth” in the passage
quoted is obscure. It plays a considerable part in the proposed
identifications of the wicked priest, but its meaning is not so clear
that it can be used as evidence for one identification as against
another. Some scholars interpret the Hebrew as meaning “called by
his true name”; others take it to mean “called by the true Name."
The translation I have given is suggested by a Hebrew expression
closely resembling this, “he was named according to his end,”
meaning that he was given a name indicating his fate.
At the bottom of the eighth column the last words left are “the
priest who rebelled.” What followed this we do not know. The
ninth column begins in the middle of a sentence: “. . . his scourge
with judgments of wickedness; and horrors of sore diseases they
wrought in him, and vengeance in his body of flesh.” Presumably
“the priest who rebelled” is the same as the wicked priest of the
previous quotation. The gap in the text makes any interpretation of
the first lines of the ninth column very precarious. The worms or
ants that ate away the last lines of all the columns made the task
of exegesis difficult. It is hard to be sure of the meaning of words
that are not there. To suppose with Elliger, for example, that the
teacher of righteousness fell ill in the course of his trial or while
his sentence was being executed, and that his followers held his
adversaries responsible for his illness, is hardly justifiable.
Dupont-Sommer conjectures for the missing last line of the
eighth column, referring to “the priest who rebelled,” something
like this: “and he persecuted the teacher of righteousness, who
was . . he then interprets the opening words of the ninth
column as meaning "smitten by him by virtue of wicked judg¬
ments.” The teacher of righteousness is thus supposed to be the
one who suffered the dire fate here described. That is not impossi¬
ble, but the fact that “the priest who rebelled” is the last person
mentioned makes it at least equally probable that it was he who
The Dead Sea Scrolls
suffered these afflictions; and this is supported by the fact that
the passage in Habakkuk that is here expounded is a threat of
punishment. EUiger objects that the commentary speaks of un¬
just judgments, but the expression "judgments of wickedness*
probably means “judgments on wickedness" not “wicked judg¬
ments."
Dupont-Sommer infers from this passage, as he interprets it,
that the teacher of righteousness who suffered “vengeance in his
body of flesh" was a divine being, who had become incarnate in
order to live and die as a man. This is one of the points at which
Dupont-Sommer sees in the Habakkuk commentary an anticipa¬
tion of Christianity. Part of his argument, as he first stated it, was
based on the expression "his body of flesh,” but this point he later
abandoned. Surely no convincing argument can be built on such a
passage as this, where even the person referred to is in doubt.
Already it is clear that the identification of the hero and villain
of the piece, not to mention the minor characters, is complicated
by the frequent uncertainty both as to what is really said and as
to the person of whom it is said. What do we know thus far about
the characters in the drama?
We know that the teacher of righteousness, a priest believed to
have a gift for interpreting prophecy, had difficulties with men who
did not believe him and dealt treacherously with him in concert
with a man called the man of the he. There was also a group called
the house of Absalom and their party—perhaps the same group or
perhaps another—who, instead of helping the teacher of righteous¬
ness when he either suffered or administered chastisement, re¬
mained silent. As for the wicked priest, we know that he was a
man who ruled in Israel and who became proud, forsook God and
the law, amassed wealth by violent measures, and wrought all
manner of unclean abominations.
Either the wicked priest or the teacher of righteousness suf¬
fered some kind of horrible bodily affliction. Who it was that suf¬
fered this mysterious visitation is debatable, but it becomes fairly
clear a few lines later. After the statement about the last priests
of Jerusalem, which we discussed in connection with the Kittim,
Dramatis Personae 153
and which may or may not have anything to do with the wicked
priest, there is a reference to “the wicked priest, whom, for the
wrong done to the teacher of righteousness and the men of his
party, God delivered into the hand of his enemies, afflicting him
with a destroying scourge, in bitterness of soul, because he acted
wickedly against his elect.” Here, quite clearly, it is the wicked
priest who is punished by his enemies because of a wrong com¬
mitted against the teacher of righteousness and his followers. Any
identification we may adopt for the wicked priest will have to
include this element of a punishment already inflicted.
At the top of the tenth column, after another gap in the text,
there are obscure references to stones and beams in connection
with oppression and robbery and to “the house of judgment,” but
no particular person is mentioned. The following lines, however,
speak of “the preacher of the lie, who enticed many to build a city
of delusion in blood and to establish a congregation in falsehood
for the sake of its honor, making many grow weary of the service
of delusion and making them pregnant with works of falsehood,
that their toil may be in vain, to the end that they may come into
judgments of fire, because they reviled and insulted God’s elect."
Here building operations of some kind are attributed to “the
preacher of the lie.” Whether he is the same as the man of the lie
or the wicked priest there is nothing in the passage to show. It
is not even clear whether the building is literal or figurative.
The eleventh column begins with the words, “the lie.” Whether
they belong to the title “the preacher of the lie” or “the man of
the lie” can only be conjectured. Presumably one or the other of
these expressions was used, and perhaps the same person was
meant in either case. Habakkuk’s denunciation of “him who makes
his neighbors drink” is quoted next, and the commentator says,
“This means the wicked priest, who persecuted the teacher of
righteousness in order to confound him in the indignation of his
wrath, wishing to banish him; and at the time of their festival of
rest, the Day of Atonement, he appeared to them to confound
them and to make them stumble on the day of fasting, their sab¬
bath of rest.”
l54 The Dead Sea Scrolls
This passage affords the principal basis for Dupont-Sommer’s
theory of the occasion and date of the Habakkuk Commentary.
Several questions of interpretation will have to be considered when
we come to the discussion of his theory. There are a few points
concerning the meanings of words, however, that can be disposed
of here. The verb which I have translated “confound” may mean
literally “swallow,” and so figuratively “destroy”; or it may mean
“cause to stumble” or “confuse.” In this context the second mean¬
ing is more probable. The same verb is used in Isaiah 28:7 and
Psalm 107:27 to express the effect of drinking wine. This meaning
fits the text just quoted from Habakkuk. It is also supported by
the words “to confound them and to make them stumble” in the
next clause, though the object of the verb there is in the plural,
meaning presumably the followers of the teacher of righteousness,
whereas here it is in the singular, doubtless meaning the teacher
himself.
The words I have translated “wishing to banish him” are ob¬
scure, and their meaning is much debated. Each of the two He¬
brew words constituting the expression raises difficult questions.
In the script of the commentary, w and y are written alike; it is
therefore possible to read the first word with either of these let¬
ters. Several forms of a verb meaning “to be willing” or “to wish
have been suggested, yielding various shades of meaning. An
entirely different interpretation rests on the supposition that this
is not one word but a contraction of a preposition and a noun,
making a phrase that means “to the house.” Emendations of the text
to produce the same meaning have been proposed also. It is even
possible that the scribe of this manuscript intended to write the
phrase in full and merely omitted a letter by mistake.
Whatever form or explanation is assumed, the phrase “to the
house" would have to be connected with the verb “persecuted”
or “pursued” rather than with the verb “confound." In that case,
however, it seems strange that the phrase does not more closely
follow the verb with which it belongs. We might conceivably sup¬
pose that the phrase I have translated “in order to confound him
is parenthetical; we could then translate: “who pursued the teacher
Dramatis Personae 155
of righteousness, making him stumble in his wrathful indignation,
to the house of’—but now comes the equally puzzling question of
what the next word means.
The word I have translated “banish” may mean “uncover.” It
may, in fact, be a noun instead of a verb. Dupont-Sommer, assum¬
ing the meaning “uncover," formerly supposed that here it referred
to the removal of a condemned criminal’s clothing before his
execution. Elliger objects that this interpretation would never
have been conceived apart from the notion that the commentator,
whose preceding quotation of Habakkuk 2:15 reads “to gaze on
their festivals,” knew and had in mind also the reading of the
Masoretic text, “to gaze on their nakedness."
Elliger himself suggests several interpretations of the verb “un¬
cover” that seem to him possible. Perhaps the wicked priest wished
to “expose” the teacher of righteousness as a heretic or an im¬
postor; or perhaps by his treatment of the teacher of righteousness
the wicked priest unwittingly revealed his own character and in¬
tentions. Elliger even finds it conceivable that “uncover” or “un¬
clothe” is a technical term meaning, as we should say, “unfrock.”
These suggestions are too far-fetched to be taken seriously, but
Elliger is surely right in insisting that what the wicked priest
wanted was not to kill the teacher of righteousness but to silence
him.
Over against all these suggestions stands the possibility that
the verb here does not mean "uncover” at all but "banish” or
“exile.” Dupont-Sommer urges against this interpretation the fact
that a different form of the verb is commonly used in biblical He¬
brew for this meaning. A noun meaning “his exile,” however, would
be spelled exactly the same as the infinitive “to exile him,” and it
may be that the scribe intended to write this noun here. What¬
ever form we assume, it seems clear that if the preceding word
is taken as a phrase, “to the house of ” the reference is more prob¬
ably to exile than to uncovering. The expression “to the house of
his exposure,” meaning the place where he was exposed, is not im¬
possible; but the meaning “to the place of his exile” seems more
natural. The idea of exile or banishment does not require such
The Dead Sea Scrolls
forced explanations of grammar and context as the idea of uncover¬
ing or exposure.
Be all that as it may, something important undoubtedly hap¬
pened on the Day of Atonement. What was it? Here again different
scholars take widely divergent ways in their interpretations. El-
liger supposes that the conflict between the teacher of righteous¬
ness and the wicked priest remained latent until it came to an
open breach on the Day of Atonement, when the high priest re¬
vealed liis real intentions. Either then or soon afterward the teacher
of righteousness was arrested and brought to trial.
Much depends upon the implications of the verb ''appear.'’ Since
it is used in the Old Testament for appearances of God, Dupont-
Sommer takes it here to mean that the teacher of righteousness,
who had been put to death, reappeared supernaturally to execute
judgment on his foes. Many scholars have pointed out that the
verb does not necessarily imply a divine manifestation, especially
in late Hebrew. Dupont-Sommer admits that it went through some
evolution in meaning after biblical times, but he protests that its
original biblical meaning was not thereby eliminated. Without
definite confirmation in the context, however, the verb by itself
cannot be taken to imply anything supernatural
There Is another and more serious objection to Dupont-Sommer's
interpretation. In the preceding clause the subject is the wicked
priest; it is natural to suppose therefore that he is also the subject
of the verb “appeared.” Dupont-Sommer reminds us that in an¬
cient Hebrew there is often a change of subject with no explicit
indication. That is true, but the question is whether the context
requires a change of subject here. If such a change is intended, a
new sentence begins after “banish him,” or "his exile,” and the
conjunction means not "and” but a strong “but” The whole state¬
ment then reads, “This means the wicked priest, who persecuted
the teacher of righteousness in order to confound him in the in¬
dignation of his wrath, wishing to banish him. But at the time of
their festival of rest, the day of atonement, he (the teacher of
righteousness) appeared to them to confound them and to make
them stumble on the day of fasting, their sabbath of rest.” This is
Dramatis Personae *57
not impossible, but if it was the teacher of righteousness who ap¬
peared, who were the people whom he confounded and caused to
stumble?
What the stumbling means is not indicated. Talmon interprets
it in terms of a difference between the official priesthood and the
teacher of righteousness concerning the calendar of festivals. This
would explain why the sacred day is called their festival of rest.
The teacher of righteousness and his followers were observing the
festival according to their own calendar, when the wicked priest
appeared before them and endeavored to make them violate their
own convictions. In view of the frequent stress on the proper ob¬
servance of times in the Dead Sea Scrolls, this interpretation is
plausible and attractive.
What has this obscure but crucial passage added to our knowl¬
edge of the characters and plot of our drama? We have learned
that the wicked priest persecuted the teacher of righteousness.
The purpose of this persecution was either uncovering of some
kind or banishment, probably the latter. One of the parties, prob¬
ably the wicked priest, appeared on the day of atonement to some
group, probably the followers of the teacher of righteousness, with
the intent to make them do something which the commentator
calls stumbling. What happened then we are not told.
A little more is said about the crimes of the wicked priest. The
expression in Habakkuk 2:16, "You are sated with ignominy in¬
stead of glory," is applied to "the priest whose ignominy was
greater than his glory, because he did not circumcise the foreskin
of his heart, but walked in the ways of drunkenness, that his thirst
might be removed." A few lines later it is said that the wicked
priest "plotted to destroy the poor,” and the mention of "violence
to a land" in Habakkuk 2:17 is applied to "the cities of Judah, be¬
cause he plundered the wealth of the poor.” The "blood of a city*
in the same verse is said to mean “Jerusalem, in which the wicked
priest wrought abominable works and defiled God’s sanctuary.”
How far the language of this passage is symbolic one cannot tell,
but there is a strong suggestion that the wicked priest was a man
of evil life, addicted in particular to drunkenness. He was also evi-
158 The Dead Sea Scrolls
dently guilty of violence and oppression, and even of desecrating
the temple.
All this wickedness will not go unpunished. "The cup of the
wrath of God will confound him, increasing his confusion. And the
pain—” Here the text breaks off again, at the bottom of the elev¬
enth column, but in the next column the language of Habakkuk
2:17 is said to mean “the wicked priest, that to him may be paid
his recompense, as he recompensed the poor. . . . God will exe¬
cute judgment upon him and destroy him.” With the reference to
the cup of God’s wrath the tense of the verb changes suddenly to
the “imperfect,” indicating that while the priest has already suf¬
fered humiliation he has a greater punishment still to suffer in the
future. This is perhaps the only clear indication in the commentary
that its writer was speaking of events in his own lifetime. When
the commentary was written the wicked priest had not yet re¬
ceived his full punishment; presumably, therefore, he was still
alive, unless we are to suppose that the final judgment was to be
executed in the world to come.
Interpreting the prophecy in Habakkuk 2:17—“For the vio¬
lence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you; the destruction of the
beasts will terrify you”—the commentator says that the wicked
priest will “be paid his recompense as he recompensed the poor”;
then he explains, “for Lebanon is the council of the community, and
the beasts are the simple ones of Judah, the doers of the law.” This
recalls the earlier mention of “all the doers of the law in the house
of Judah, whom God will rescue from the house of judgment be¬
cause of their labor and their faith in the teacher of righteousness.”
All these expressions evidently refer to the disciples of the teacher
of righteousness, and they are identified with the poor whom the
wicked priest plundered and persecuted.
Our dramatis personae are now all before us. The hero is the
inspired and persecuted teacher of righteousness. The villain is
the rapacious, violent persecutor, the apostate, impious, drunken,
defeated, apparently, tortured, perhaps diseased, and certainly
doomed wicked priest. The man of the lie is probably a third
character; the preacher of the lie may be the same man or a
Dramatis Personae J 59
fourth member of the cast. The house of Absalom is a group of
people who for some unexplained reason should have helped the
teacher of righteousness but instead kept silence. God’s elect, the
men of truth, the poor, the simple ones of Judah, the doers of the
law, are those who have persisted in their faith in the teacher of
righteousness. All these, together with the Kittim, the guilty house,
the house of judgment, and the last priests of Jerusalem, constitute
our cast, both principals and chorus.
VIII
Identifications of Persons and Events
IJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJTJ^
With all the characters on the stage, can we recognize them and
the historical events in which they take part? The plot is by no
means clear; even the separate episodes in it are obscure. In trying
to connect it with historical movements and events, we must keep
one point in mind, although it does not simplify the problem. We
cannot assume that the incidents occurred in the order in which we
read of them. The exposition is governed by the order of the text
of Habakkuk; each sentence or phrase brings to the commen¬
tator’s mind events and persons in the history of his nation and
his own religous community, and he mentions them as they occur
to him. No chronological sequence, therefore, can be inferred from
the commentary.
It may seem that all this leaves very little ground for any
specific identification of our characters and the events in which
they were involved. Actually, perhaps just because of the ob¬
scurity and ambiguity of the data, scholars have managed to pro¬
duce an abundance of theories. Most of these, it is true, are not
based exclusively upon the Habakkuk Commentary. Much use
is made, especially, of the Damascus Document, where the teacher
of righteousness and others mentioned in the commentary appear
again. Since we are now concerned solely with the time when the
Habakkuk Commentary was written, as indicated by the historical
references in it, all interpretations and arguments based on the
Damascus Document or other texts must for the present be ig-
Identifications of Persons and Events 161
nored. The relation between the Damascus Document and the
Dead Sea Scrolls is a problem that must be considered by itself
in the proper place.
Both logic and convenience favor a review of the theories in
the historical order of the situations and events to which they at¬
tach our document. We have found it probable that the Kittim
are the Romans rather than the Macedonians. This tentative judg¬
ment, however, must not be allowed to prejudice us against argu¬
ments for placing the teacher of righteousness and the wicked
priest in an earlier period. If it should turn out to be probable that
they were men who lived long before the Roman conquest of
Palestine, our conclusion concerning the Kittim may have to be
revised, or we may conceivably conclude that these persons and
the Kittim were not contemporaries.
In connection with the Kittim we have considered the conflict
between the Hellenists and the conservative Jews in the pre-
Maccabean period and mentioned the prominent family known
to historians as the Tobiads. Late in the third century b.c., when
Palestine was under the dominion of the Ptolemies of Egypt, a
member of this family named Joseph secured from the king by
guile and impudence a concession for fanning the taxes of cities
in Syria and Palestine. His maneuvers to secure this opportunity
for gaining power and wealth involved a decidedly unethical
treatment of his uncle, the high priest Onias II, whose family
is called by historians the Oniads. No less than four high priests
by the name of Onias came from this family. Joseph’s treacherous
dealing .with his uncle, it has been suggested, may have led the
Oniad party to compare him with David’s disloyal son Absalom,
and so the Tobiads may have come to be called "the house of
Absalom.”
Another suggestion is that it was a son of Joseph, named Hyr-
canus, whose disloyalty caused the Tobiads to be called the house
of Absalom. With methods much like his father’s, Hyrcanus too
won the favor of the Egyptian king, but by so doing he aroused the
wrath of his father and the jealousy of his brothers. As a result he
was attacked by his brothers and forced to withdraw to Trans-
The Dead Sea Scrolls
jordan. There he lived until the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes,
when he committed suicide. The disloyalty of Hyrcanus toward his
own father, his underhanded procedure, and the fact that he was
forced to take refuge in Transjordan all seem to constitute an im¬
pressive parallel with the story of Absalom and David. For a while
this theory seemed to me the most probable view of the historical
background of the commentary. I now feel that the explanation
of the name “house of Absalom” should be sought in the disloyalty
of some group to the teacher of righteousness himself. The obliga¬
tion to which this group was unfaithful need not have been that
of discipleship; it may have been the obligation of family or any
other relationship.
Those scholars who hold that the situation reflected in the com¬
mentary is pre-Maccabean put it a little later than the time of
Joseph and Hyrcanus. Early in the second century b.c. the control
of Palestine finally passed from the Ptolemies of Egypt to the
Seleucids of Syria. When Antiochus Epiphanes came to the throne
of Syria in 175 b.c. the Jewish high priest was Onias III, a grand¬
son of Onias II. The Tobiads, who had recently been driven out
of Jerusalem by the Oniads, now appealed to Antiochus, who took
Jerusalem by force and wrought great havoc in the city. Onias was
deposed from the high priesthood and driven from the country.
His brother Jeshua was appointed in his place and proceeded to
show his devotion to his royal patron by taking the Greek name
Jason and ardently promoting the adoption of Greek practices by
Jewish priests and aristocrats.
This abandonment of the ways of the fathers did much to stiffen
the reaction of devout Jews against all Hellenistic innovations.
Jason was soon replaced by a man named Menelaus, who had
promised the king a bigger bribe than Jason’s. A few years later,
at about the same time that Antiochus was compelled by the
Romans to relinquish his newly won advantage in Egypt (168
b.c. ), Jason was restoted to office by a revolt of the pro-Egyptian
Oniads at Jerusalem. The revolt was quickly put down, however,
and Antiochus gave the high priesthood back again to Menelaus.
It has been argued that both the teacher of righteousness and
Identifications of Persons and Events 163
the wicked priest in the Habakkuk Commentary were “super¬
individual” figures, representing not one person but two or more
persons of the same type. According to this view, the teacher of
righteousness was both the legitimate high priesthood in general
and also Onias III in particular; the wicked priest was both Jason
and Menelaus, and perhaps also Alcimus, the successor of Mene-
laus, not to mention others. Some scholars, without accepting a
collective interpretation, have espoused what may be called mul¬
tiple interpretations, applying the title “teacher of righteousness”
or “wicked priest” not to an office in general but to several indi¬
vidual incumbents of the office. A conflict may have raged for
generations, it is said, between teachers of righteousness and
wicked priests. Usually, however, the teacher of righteousness is
believed to have been an individual.
It must be admitted that there is nothing impossible in this idea
of multiple identifications. The commentator might see in Habak¬
kuk references to several wicked priests, and therefore say in one
place, “This means the priest that did such and such," and in an¬
other, “This means the one that did so and so.” We should then
translate the passage in question, not “This means the wicked
priest, who . . . but “This means the wicked priest that . . .”
and so forth. This is all the more plausible if the term “wicked
priest" is a parody of the official tide “chief priest,” as we have
seen to be quite probable.
On the other hand, to apply a designation in one passage to one
person and the same designation in another passage to another
person means in effect that no one individual has been found to
whom all the allusions are applicable. A multiple interpretation is
quite possible if the text compels us to adopt it, but it should surely
be adopted only as a last resort. Our inabilty to identify the per¬
sons in question may mean simply that their lives are not recorded
in the historical sources that have come down to us. The supposi¬
tion that there was only one teacher of righteousness but more than
one wicked priest especially arouses misgivings. Surely in that
case there would have been some clearer indication of the plural¬
ity of the wicked priest.
1 g 4 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Not aH who find the historical background of the commentary
in the pre-Maccabean period consider it necessary to adopt any
multiple interpretation of the titles in question. Several scholars
identify the teacher of righteousness with Onias III and the wicked
priest with Menelaus. What our sources teU us about Onias III
can be summarized very briefly. He is said to have been a man
of such godliness that during his high priesthood the temple was
honored even by gentile rulers. One of them, however, attempted
to despoil the treasures deposited there, but a divine apparition
frustrated the impious design. A king of Sparta sent a letter to
Onias declaring that Jews and Spartans alike were descendants of
Abraham. When Onias was deposed at the accession of Antiochus
Epiphanes, he took refuge in Egypt. There, some years later, ac¬
cording to one story, he built a temple like the one at Jerusalem;
elsewhere Josephus attributes this to Onias IV, while the Talmud
gives the credit for it to Onias II. According to II Maccabees, Onias
HI sought refuge in Syria but was murdered at the instigation of
Menelaus in the sacred grove of Daphne on the outskirts of
There is really very little in all this that can be connected with
the inspired teacher of righteousness of the Habakkuk Commen¬
tary. The supposition that he was exiled and pursued to the house
of his exile, as Onias was, depends on a particular interpretation
of the difficult expression which I translate as “wishing to banish
him.” Like Onias, the teacher of righteousness was a champion of
the covenant; both he and Onias had trouble with treacherous
men and wicked priests. That is about all. The case for the identi¬
fication of the teacher of righteousness with Onias III really de¬
pends upon the degree to which other characters in the commen¬
tary can be identified with his contemporaries.
For the role of the wicked priest, Menelaus is the favorite candi¬
date of those who consider the situation reflected by the com¬
mentary to have been in the pre-Maccabean period. He was con¬
spicuously guilty of plundering and persecuting devout Jews in
collaboration with his royal patron, Antiochus Epiphanes. It was
while he was high priest that “the abomination of desolation’’ was
Identifications of Persons and Events 165
set up in the temple, unclean animals were sacrificed, and the
sacred courts were defiled by pagan debauchery. His death corre¬
sponds, at least in part, to what is said in the commentary about
the humiliation and horrible agony of the wicked priest: according
to II Maccabees he was dropped from a high tower into hot ashes.
Not every point in what is said about the wicked priest, however,
can be connected with anything known about Menelaus. The state¬
ment that the wicked priest “was named according to the truth
when he first took office" hardly refers to Menelaus, and the
“horrors of sore diseases" said to have been suffered by the wicked
priest are not recorded of him.
The man of the lie is commonly believed by advocates of the
pre-Maccabean hypothesis to be Antiochus Epiphanes himself.
This view has been criticized on the ground that it draws a dis¬
tinction between the man of the lie and the wicked priest. There
is no basis in the text, it is claimed, for distinguishing them. One
may ask whether there is any basis in the text for identifying them.
It is true, however, that much the same charges are brought against
them, and both were adversaries of the teacher of righteousness.
On the other hand it is argued that no Jewish priest of that time
could be said to have “rejected the law among all peoples," whereas
that statement fits Antiochus admirably. This argument depends
upon a conjectural restoration of the text different from the one
underlying my translation. There is a gap in the manuscript be¬
tween the first and last letters of the last word in the passage just
cited. By supplying the two missing letters in different ways we can
get the meaning “peoples" or “their council" or “their congrega¬
tion.” No sound argument can be based on any such purely hypo¬
thetical reconstruction of a word. Whether the man of the lie and
the wicked priest are to be regarded as the same person remains
uncertain.
That the man of the lie and the preacher of the lie are the same
man is hardly more certain, though most interpreters have as¬
sumed this to be the case. The preacher of the lie, says the com¬
mentator, “enticed many to build a city of delusion in blood and
to establish a congregation in falsehood.” How does this apply to
l66 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Antiochus Epiphanes? It has been suggested that the city was the
Aba or citadel at Jerusalem, of which I Maccabees «33 - 3 ^
the Syrian army “fortified the city of David ... and it became
^But'did Antiochus establish a congregation? An «"«»<>?*
question has been found in I Maccabees 1:34. wh.chspea^oia
sinful people, lawless men," whom the Syrians stationed to die
Akra This was not a mere mob but an organized body ^
definite mission; therefore, it is claimed, the H ^ew wordto^
lated “congregation" could be appropriately used of it. tb*
word would ever have been used to such a sense is decidedly
d °The dieory that the house of Absalom, who did not help the
teacher of righteousness against the man of the lie, was die Tobtod
family or party has been weighed and found wanting. Anodier
suggestion remains to be considered to connection with the pre-
Maccabean hypothesis. In I Maccabees iitfo * Matttt *^ ““
of Absalom, is mentioned, and II Maccabees 13:11 «*« *
Jonathan, son of Absalom. Possibly the same Absalom was the
father of’both these men; he may also have been the Absalom
named in II Maccabees 11:17 as an envoy of Judas Maccabeus.
A few scholars believe that his family was the house of Absalom
of the Habakkuk Commentary. There is nothing in what we are
told about this Absalom, or any of these Absaloms, tOMplato such
a connection between him and the group mentioned to &e^com¬
mentary. He may have been at first an ally of Onias HI, it is said,
and later may have turned against him or rematoed neutral to one
of the several conflicts which Onias had with his rivals. But this
is pure conjecture. Only the fact that he was a contemporary ot
Onias HI and the fact that his name was Absalom afford any
ground at all for the suggestion. The latter point does not impress
those of us who find it hard to believe that the commentator had
in mind a man named Absalom.
Let us try to put together the whole picture according to e
pre-Maccabean hypothesis. If we substitute names for tiiecryptic
designations used in the commentary, the theory implies that God
Identifications of Persons and Events lG 7
made known to the high priest Onias III the meaning of the words
of the prophets, and throughhim declared what was coming upon
the last generations. His enemies, who betrayed the covenant,
did not believe Onias. He was persecuted by his rival, Menelaus,
and had some trouble also with the king, Antiochus Epiphanes.
The Tobiads, or the family of Absalom, kept silence at his chas¬
tisement and did not help him against Antiochus, who rejected
the law of God in the midst of their whole congregation. Many
-were enticed by Antiochus to build a city of delusion in blood
and to establish a congregation in falsehood. They reviled and
insulted God’s elect, but the doers of the law believed in Onias
and persevered in the service of the truth when they were in
distress. Menelaus was named according to the truth when he first
took office, but when he had begun to rule in Israel he became
proud, forsook God, and betrayed the statutes for the sake of
wealth. He plundered and assembled the wealth of the men of vi¬
olence who rebelled against God; he also took the wealth of
peoples, and plundered the wealth of the poor in the cities of Ju¬
dah, plotting to destroy them. He walked in the ways of drunken¬
ness and wrought unclean abominations. He did abominable
things in Jerusalem and defiled God’s sanctuary. He persecuted
Onias, wishing to banish him (or pursued him to the place of
exile). On the Day of Atonement he appeared to the foUowers of
Onias to confound them and make them stumble on their sabbath
of rest; but for the wrong done to Onias and his party God de¬
livered Menelaus to his enemies, afflicting him with a destroying
scourge in bitterness of soul. Horrors of sore diseases were wrought
in him, and vengeance in the body of his flesh.
Much, if not all, of this may have happened, but very little of it
is recorded in any of the sources for the history of the period. Con¬
ceivably some of the allusions might be clearer if we knew more
about Onias and Menelaus. The weakest part of the theory is the
idea that Onias III was the teacher of righteousness. No doubt
he was a good man and was persecuted. He certainly had dif¬
ficulties with Antiochus Epiphanes. But nothing indicates that he
was in any special way a teacher of righteousness beyond the
168 The Dead Sea Scrolls
statement of II Maccabees 3:1 that because of his godliness and his
hatred of wickedness the laws were strictly observed while he was
high priest. Actually there is nothing in the commentary to sug¬
gest that the teacher of righteousness was a high priest. If what he
suffered at the hands of the man of the lie and the wicked priest
included expulsion from the high priesthood, the lack of any hint
of this in the commentary is very strange.
For the Maccabean or Hasmonean period several situations
and combinations of persons have been proposed as solutions of
our problem. In 168 b . c . the rel>ellion provoked by the repressive
measures of Antiochus Epiphanes broke out openly. By a series of
brilliant campaigns Judas Maccabeus in four years achieved re¬
ligious liberty, and then went on toward the attainment of political
independence.
A dual identification of the teacher of righteousness has been
suggested for the very beginning of this period. The term “teacher
of righteousness” can be translated “guide of righteousness.” So
understood, according to this theory, it was applied to Mattathias,
the father of Judas, and also to Judas himself. It is hard to see any
connection between either Mattathias or Judas and the teacher of
righteousness of the Habakkuk Commentary. During the first
years of the Maccabean revolt Menelaus was still high priest, but
nothing in his recorded relations with Judas corresponds to the
persecution, the appearance on the Day of Atonement, or any of
the other incidents referred to by the commentator.
In 164 b . c . Antiochus Epiphanes died. His son, Antiochus V,
reigned only two short years but in that time defeated Judas in an
important battle, regained control of Jerusalem, deposed Menelaus
and had him put to death. The supplanter and successor of
Antiochus V, Demetrius I, gave the high priesthood to Alcimus,
who is the next candidate for the post of wicked priest. The devout
Jews, known as Hasidim, who had at first supported the Mac¬
cabean revolt, welcomed Alcimus, but, after swearing not to harm
them, he had sixty of them murdered. In rabbinic traditions he
appears as a persecutor of the righteous and a pillager of the
temple treasures.
Identifications of Persons and Events 169
In his attainment of the high priesthood and his straggle with
the Maccabees, Alcimus was strongly supported and aided by the
Syrian general Bacchides, who has therefore been nominated for
the double role of the man of the lie and the preacher of the lie.
Josephus attributes to him the faithless murder of sixty of the
Hasidim, as well as a fruitless effort to entrap Judas Maccabeus by
treachery.
The same family of Absalom suggested under the pre-
Maccabean hypothesis serves here too as the house of Absalom of
our commentary. The references in I and II Maccabees to a man
(or men) named Absalom indicate that he was (or they were)
allied with the Maccabees; for that reason the family of Absalom
might well have refused to support the Hasidim, who had with¬
drawn from the Maccabean movement. How they could have been
expected to support these Hasidim under the circumstances is not
so easy to see.
The teacher of righteousness may have been, it is suggested, an
unknown member of the group of murdered Hasidim. There is
also a specific individual, however, who has been seriously con¬
sidered in this connection. An uncle of the high priest Alcimus
named Jose ben Joezer was, according to rabbinic tradition, both
a priest and an eminent master of the law. It is related of him
that he was condemned to be hanged and was taunted by Alcimus,
but replied with such wisdom that his cruel nephew was moved
to repent.
After about four years in office Alcimus ordered the wall of the
inner temple court tom down, but before his impious command
could be carried out he was struck dumb and paralyzed. Some
days later he died in agony. It is not surprising that scholars have
seen a reference to his dire end in what is said of the “horrors of
sore diseases” and “vengeance in the body of his flesh" suffered by
the wicked priest. The similarity is impressive, but it should not
be forgotten that a reference here to the wicked priest, though
probable, is not certain; moreover, there is at least a faint sugges¬
tion that his suffering was inflicted by his enemies.
This theory deserves at least a r&um6 such as I have given for
lyo The Dead Sea Scrolls
the pre-Maccabean hypothesis. Using the name of Jose ben Joezer
rather frhnn an unknown and unnamable Hasid, we may say that
God made known to Jose the meaning of prophecy and through
him declared what was coming upon the last generations. His
enemies, who betrayed the covenant, did not believe him. He was
persecuted by the high priest Alcimus and had some trouble also
with Bacchides. The family of Absalom kept silence at his chastise¬
ment and did not help him against Bacchides, who rejected the
law of God in the midst of a whole congregation. Many were
enticed by Bacchides to build a city of delusion in blood and to
establish a congregation in falsehood. They reviled and insulted
God’s elect, but the Hasidim believed in Jose and persevered in
the service of the truth when they were in distress. Alcimus was
named according to the truth when he first took office, but when
he had begun to rule in Israel he became proud, forsook God, and
betrayed the statutes for the sake of wealth. He plundered and
assembled the wealth of the men of violence who rebelled against
God; he also took the wealth of peoples and plundered the wealth
of the poor in the cities of Judah, plotting to destroy them. He
walked in the ways of drunkenness and wrought unclean abomina¬
tions. He did abominable things in Jerusalem and defiled God’s
sanctuary. He persecuted Jose ben Joezer, wishing to banish him
(or pursued him to the place of his exile). On the Day of Atone¬
ment he appeared to the Hasidim to confound them and make them
stumble on their sabbath of rest; but for the wrong done to Jose
and his party God delivered Alcimus to his enemies, afflicting him
with a destroying scourge in bitterness of soul, because he acted
treacherously against the elect. Horrors of sore diseases were
wrought in him and vengeance in the body of his flesh.
This makes a total picture at least as impressive as the one
presented by the pre-Maccabean theory, though again not every
point fits what we find in our sources about the persons involved.
The weakest point here too is the identification of the teacher of
righteousness. Strictly speaking, Jose ben Joezer and Bacchides
should not be combined in the same theory. If Jose is supposed to
be the teacher of righteousness, it is better to make Alcimus play
Identifications of Persons and Events 171
the part of the man of the lie as well as that of the wicked priest;
whereas if Bacchides is regarded as the man of the lie, an un¬
known victim in the slaughter of the sixty Hasidim will serve better
than Jose as the teacher of righteousness.
Before the death of Alcimus, Judas Maccabeus was defeated
and killed in the battle of Elasa in 160 b.c. His brother Jonathan
then assumed the leadership of the Jews. Bacchides, who had
defeated Judas, found himself helpless against Jonathan’s guerrilla
tactics. Finally, in 157 b.c., he made peace with Jonathan. The
anxious two years between the death of Alcimus in 159 and the
final withdrawal of Bacchides in 157 have been suggested as the
time when the Habakkuk Commentary was written.
A slightly later date is contemplated by a very different theory,
which sees in Jonathan himself the wicked priest of some passages
in the commentary. Jonathan’s assumption of the high priesthood,
it is thought, was resented by the teacher of righteousness and his
followers, who believed that only the descendants of Zadok could
legitimately be high priests. After maintaining and improving his
position, both by astute political relations with the contenders
for the throne of Syria and by military victories, Jonathan fell a
victim of treachery and was captured, thrown into a dungeon,
and finally assassinated. These events are believed to be reflected
in what is said of the “destroying scourge” inflicted on the wicked
priest by his enemies.
This interpretation, however, is only one part of a dual identifi¬
cation of the wicked priest. The priest who was a drunkard,
plundered the poor, and defiled the temple is thought to be not
Jonathan but his brother Simon, who succeeded him as high priest
in 142 b.c. and was assassinated while drunk in 135 b.c. He is
supposed to be also the preacher of the lie who built a city in
blood. Impressive as this theory is at certain points, it not only
suffers from the weakness of being unable to find one priest to
whom all that is said about the wicked priest can be applied, but
also fails to provide a satisfactory identification for other char¬
acters in the story.
Simon’s son, John Hyrcanus, was high priest from 135 to 104 b.c.
172 The Dead Sea Scrolls
At t his time the major groupings within Judaism, which we find
well established in New Testament times, were taking definite
shape. The most influential of these, which ultimately prevailed
and set the pattern for orthodox Judaism in succeeding centuries,
was the party known as the Pharisees. They were devout and
strict in their obedience to the law, though capable of some
elasticity in its interpretation. They opposed the assumption of
both priestly and royal offices by the Hasmoneans. For this reason
John Hyrcanus, after having aligned himself with them at first,
withdrew his support near the end of his reign and persecuted
their leaders so aggressively that some were forced into exile.
According to Josephus, the Pharisees in general had approved
the conduct of Hyrcanus, but the break with them came when one
of them, named Eleazar, told the king that he ought to give up the
high priesthood and be satisfied with governing the people. The
same story appears, with some differences, in the Talmud.
Brownlee suggests that Hyrcanus was the man of the lie, that
Eleazar was the teacher of righteousness, and that the house of
Absalom means the Pharisees, who did not support Eleazar when
he rebuked Hyrcanus. The chastisement or reproof of the teacher
of righteousness is thus taken to mean the teacher's reproof of the
man of the lie.
From the Dead Sea Scrolls in general, and from the Habakkuk
Commentary in particular, it would not seem that the teacher of
righteousness and his followers were Pharisees. This difficulty is
met by the suggestion that Eleazar was an extremist, whose
followers would not go all the way with him; but the point is that
the doctrines and practices reflected by the Dead Sea Scrolls are
not at all those of Pharisaism as it is known to us from other
sources. We shall have to come back to this question again.
Some support for the view that Eleazar the Pharisee was the
teacher of righteousness has been found in the fact that the Tal¬
mud's account of the same incident gives his name not as Eleazar
but as Judah ben Jedediah. Brownlee suggests also that Judah ben *
Jedediah and Judah the Essene, of whom we shall hear more
presently, were the same man. This involves a conception of the
Identifications of Persons and Events 173
Essenes as an extreme branch of the Pharisees, another idea we
must discuss later.
That the teacher of righteousness was named Judah is thought
to be indicated, as we noted in the last chapter, by the references
to “the house of Judah,” “the simple ones of Judah,” and “the
cities of Judah” in the commentary. Even the use of the expres¬
sion “I will praise thee” at the beginning of some of the Thanks¬
giving Psalms is adduced as evidence for this theory, because the
same verb is used in Genesis 29:35, where Leah, in naming her
son Judah, says, “I will praise the Lord ”
With full appreciation of the ingenuity and originality of these
ideas, one finds it difficult to take them quite seriously. A com¬
plicated structure built out of clever guesses is no more solid than
the materials of which it is made. It has been pointed out that
whereas the wicked priest in the commentary is accused of pride
and greed, the objection against Hyrcanus raised by Eleazar, ac¬
cording to Josephus, was that he was believed to be the son of
a captive woman, and therefore ineligible for the high priesthood.
The theory that Eleazar was the teacher of righteousness and
John Hyrcanus was the man of the lie is part of a rather elaborate
multiple interpretation of the historical allusions in the com¬
mentary. Hyrcanus is thought to be also one of several wicked
priests, the one in particular who was at first named according to
the truth but forsook God and betrayed the statutes after he began
to rule in Israel. This is more impressive than the interpretation
of the man of the lie and the teacher of righteousness with which
it is combined. The chief point in its favor is the fact that Hyrcanus
was on good terms with the Pharisees when he first took office
but broke with them later. This could possibly be what is meant
by his being called at first by the name of truth, though the
connection is hardly obvious.
It is perhaps both an advantage and a weakness of such multiple
interpretations that they do not have to find one person to whom
all the statements about the wicked priest apply. Since it is not
claimed that all these passages refer to Hyrcanus, it would be
pointless to try to reconstruct a unified picture for all of them.
174 The De °d Sea Scrolls
This deprives us, however, of a helpful test to which the more
comprehensive theories can be subjected.
The successor of John Hyrcanus was his son, Aristobulus I. Al¬
though he ruled only one year (104-103 b . c .), he retained and
perhaps even extended the realm that had been won by his
predecessors. He was also apparently the first member of the
Hasmonean dynasty to assume openly the title of king. On his
accession he imprisoned all his brothers with the exception of one
named Antigonus. Later, aroused to jealousy against Antigonus,
he brought about his death by treachery, for which the pangs of
remorse were added to the agony of the lingering intestinal dis¬
order of which he died.
The manner of his death makes Aristobulus a promising con¬
tender for the role of the wicked priest who suffered “horrors of
sore diseases” and “vengeance in the body of his flesh.” Because
of the loss of one or two lines at the bottom of the eighth column,
however, we cannot now say whether the whole passage could be
applied to Aristobulus. No scholar, so far as I know, has claimed
that what we know of Aristobulus fits all the statements about the
wicked priest.
A curious incident in the reign of Aristobulus affords a tempt¬
ing identification of the teacher of righteousness. It is especially
attractive to those who believe that the Qumran covenanters were
Essenes. According to Josephus, a member of the Essenes named
Judah was noted for his accurate predictions of the future. Having
predicted the death of Aristobulus’s brother Antigonus on a cer¬
tain day and at a certain place, he was dismayed at seeing
Antigonus alive late that day and far from the place where he was
expected to die. The prophecy was exactly fulfilled, however, for
Antigonus was waylaid and murdered at a nearby place of the
same name. What makes this incident especially interesting for our
purpose is that Judah is said to have had disciples whom he in¬
structed in the art of foretelling the future.
Aristobulus was followed by the eldest of his surviving brothers,
Alexander Janneus (103-76 b.c.). An ambitious and able warrior,
he both conquered new territory and suppressed rebellion within
Identifications of Persons and Events 175
his kingdom, but only at the cost of great bitterness. Like others
of his family, he was not only a hard fighter but a hard drinker, and
in his last years he suffered much from an affliction caused by his
intemperance. He died, however, in battle.
Several scholars have seen in Alexander Janneus the wicked
priest of the Habakkuk Commentary. He is qualified for the role
on several points, including drunkenness, luxury, immorality, love
of riches, sickness, and final punishment by his enemies. An in¬
teresting explanation has been offered also for the statement that
the wicked priest “was named according to the truth when he first
took office." The name according to the truth (literally, “name of
the truth"), it is suggested, was Alexander’s Jewish name, Jonathan
(i.e., “The Lord gave"), from which the late Hebrew form Yannai
and the Greek form Janneus are thought by some to have been
derived. His forsaking God when he began to rule is explained as
an allusion to his assumption of the royal title, which meant for¬
saking the fidelity to the house of David symbolized by the name
Jonathan. For the same reason the dynasty of Alexander Janneus
is thought to be meant by the term "house of Absalom.” The glory
of Janneus consisted in winning a kingdom as large as that of
David and Solomon; his ignominy, which surpassed his glory, con¬
sisted in the blood, cruelty, and hatred that marked his reign.
The commentators statement that the wicked priest was de¬
livered to his enemies is regarded by some scholars as an allusion
to a disastrous defeat of Alexander Janneus by the Nabateans,
from which he barely escaped alive. Before this there had been
a riot in the temple when Alexander officiated at the Feast of
Tabernacles; after his defeat the people rose against him again,
and for several years there was a civil war which is said to have
caused the death of fifty thousand Jews. Although Alexander tried
to make peace with the people, he was unable to achieve a rec¬
onciliation.
The mysterious appearance on the Day of Atonement, inevitably
central in all the theories, has been connected by a number of
scholars with the rising of the people against Alexander Janneus
at the Feast of Tabernacles. This, it is thought, may have been
176 The Dead Sea Scrolls
a popular reaction to the provocation on the Day of Atonement
The Feast of Tabernacles comes five days after the Day of Atone¬
ment, when the incident in question took place. It is possible,
however, as we have already seen, that this event hinged upon
a difference concerning the religious calendar. If so, we cannot tell
what was the chronological relation between the official Feast of
Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement observed by the disciples
of the teacher of righteousness.
The discussion of Alexander’s candidacy for the role of the
wicked priest has unfortunately been confused by being combined
with the discussion of the Kittim. Those who regard Alexander as
the wicked priest are not agreed as to whether the Kittim are the
Seleucids or the Romans. Thirteen years intervened between his
death in 76 b . c . and the occupation of Judah by Pompey. For the
advocates of multiple identifications, of course, there is no problem
here at all: some allusions may refer to the time of the Seleucid
domination, and others to the Roman period. But the power of the
Romans was known in Palestine long before the time of Pompey.
The commentator may have expected them to come sooner than
they did.
If Alexander Janneus was the wicked priest, who was the teacher
of righteousness? No answer to this question has been offered on
the supposition that Alexander was the only wicked priest en¬
visaged by the commentator; but if there were two or more wicked
priests in close succession, the same teacher of righteousness can
be postulated for episodes involving both or all of them. Thus
Eleazar or Judah, who rebuked John Hyrcanus, is believed also
to have been the teacher of righteousness who was persecuted
by Alexander Janneus. As a matter of fact, the story Josephus tells
in connection with the break between the Pharisees and Hyrcanus
appears in the Talmud under the reign of Alexander Janneus.
Moreover, if Judah ben Jedediah was Judah the Essene, he was
involved also with Aristobulus I, who reigned between John
Hyrcanus and Alexander Janneus. All this is, to say the least, very
confusing. The confusion is in part inherent in our sources them¬
selves. One is tempted to feel also, however, that the theories
Identifications of Persons and Events 177
which resort to a multiple identification of the wicked priest have
an unfair advantage in being free to distribute what is said of
him among several different men.
Not all who regard Alexander Janneus as the wicked priest
make him share that doubtful honor with others. In one form of
the hypothesis, indeed, Alexander not only keeps to himself the
role of the wicked priest but also plays the part of the man of the
lie and even, paradoxically, that of Absalom, whose house did
not support the teacher of righteousness against the man of the
lie. According to another view, Absalom was a brother of Alex¬
ander Janneus who refrained from intervening in the conflict be¬
tween the latter and the teacher of righteousness. Still another
theory distinguishes the man of the lie from the wicked priest and
identifies him with a famous leader of the Pharisees, Simon ben
Shetah, who was a brother of Salome Alexandra, the wife of
Alexander Janneus.
From all these variations of the thesis that Alexander was the
wicked priest, or one of the wicked priests, we cannot expect a
clear picture to emerge. Perhaps the very existence of so many
different theories connected with Alexander Janneus should
arouse suspicion as to the validity of any association between him
and the Habakkuk Commentary. Serious objections to him as the
wicked priest have been raised. With all his drunkenness and
rapacity, and all the bloody conflicts during his reign, he did not,
Michel argues, abandon the statutes or the covenant. His enemies
within the Jewish nation were the Pharisees, with whom the
disciples of the teacher of righteousness cannot be identified, and
the struggle was more political than religious. Another difficulty
is that none of the proposed identifications of other characters in
his reign seems more than remotely possible. At the same time,
the contacts between his career and what the commentary says
of the wicked priest are still impressive. If any dual or multiple
identification must be adopted, Alexander Janneus was probably
one of the wicked priests.
It may be well to remind ourselves at this point that we have
reached the time when the community of Qumran was certainly
178 The Dead Sea Scrolls
in existence. Coins of John Hyrcanus, Aristobulus I, and Alexander
Janneus were found in the remains of the first building at Khirbet
Qumran. If the career of the teacher of righteousness must be
dated later than the reign of Alexander Janneus, the teacher was
not the founder of the sect but a leader who arose in the course of
its history. In that case, however, any convincing identification
must take account of the fact that the sect was already leading a
separate life of its own in the desert.
The successor of Alexander was his widow, Salome Alexandra,
who reigned from 76 to 67 b.c. No scholar has yet proposed her
for any role in our drama, but this cannot be said of her sons,
Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. During her life Hyrcanus served as
high priest, and after her death he would normally have succeeded
her. Aristobulus, however, attacked and defeated him and com¬
pelled him to give up both throne and high priesthood, reigning
in his stead as Aristobulus II (67-63 b . c .).
If Hyrcanus had been left to himself, Aristobulus might have had
things his own way; but now an able and ambitious man saw an
opportunity to advance his own interests by promoting the strife
between the two brothers. This man was Antipater, son of a
governor of Idumea, and perhaps his father's successor as governor.
At his instigation Hyrcanus sought help from the king of the
Nabateans across the Jordan, who, nothing loath, attacked and
defeated Aristobulus.
Not only the Idumean Antipater but also the Roman general
Pompey, who at this time represented the power of Rome in Syria,
was quick to take advantage of this situation. In 65 b.c. his legate
intervened on behalf of Aristobulus, and in 63 Pompey himself
received at Damascus appeals from the two contending brothers
and also from the people of Judah, who were tired of both of them.
Finding Aristobulus unreliable, the Romans arrested him. At Jeru¬
salem they were allowed by the party of Hyrcanus to enter the
city, but the adherents of Aristobulus took refuge in the temple.
Only after a siege of three months did Pompey capture this strong¬
hold. The high priesthood was restored to Hyrcanus, who held it
Identifications of Persons and Events 179
until 40 b.c. as a vassal of Rome. Although commonly known as
Hyrcanus II, he was not allowed to call himself king.
So began the Roman period of Jewish history, to which not a
few scholars assign the events referred to by the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary. The most widely and warmly discussed theory is that of
Dupont-Sommer, who sees the historical setting of the commentary
in the circumstances and events just related. In this theory, as
it was first propounded, the statement that the wicked priest was
delivered to his enemies and cruelly afflicted was taken to refer
to the tragic end of Aristobulus II, who was led in chains in
Pompey’s triumphal procession at Rome after the capture of Jeru¬
salem, and died by poison in prison in 49 b.c. In his reign Dupont-
Sommer finds also an Absalom, whom he takes to be the head
of the house of Absalom mentioned in the commentary. He was
the father-in-law of Aristobulus and also his uncle; he may there¬
fore have been a brother of Alexandra, and in that case he was
probably a Pharisee. The commentator’s statement about the house
of Absalom means therefore, according to this theory, that the
Pharisees remained neutral when the teacher of righteousness
was persecuted by Aristobulus, who is assumed to be the man of
the lie as well as the wicked priest. The implication that the house
of Absalom should have helped the teacher of righteousness is
not explained by this hypothesis, and the parallel is not close
enough to justify the improbable assumption that a man actually
named Absalom was referred to by the commentator.
The most distinctive and controversial point in Dupont-
Sommer’s theory is his interpretation of the passage about the Day
of Atonement. His insistence that the verb “appeared” implies a
divine manifestation has already been discussed, together with
his contention that it was the teacher of righteousness who ap¬
peared. With these unacceptable premises, Dupont-Sommer
argues that on the Day of Atonement the teacher of righteousness,
who had previously suffered martyrdom, appeared as a divine
being to confound and punish the wicked priest. Such a divine
manifestation, overwhelming the people of Jerusalem, can only
180 The Dead Sea Scrolls
have been, he thinks, the capture of Jerusalem by Pompey on the
Day of Atonement in 63 b.c.
If the teacher of righteousness had been put to death before
the coming of Pompey, when was this crime committed? Accord¬
ing to Josephus, Aristobulus spent some time at Jerusalem in the
spring of 63, making preparations for war. Under such circum¬
stances he would naturally attempt to get rid of his enemies, and
it may have been then that he liquidated the teacher of righteous¬
ness. Another possible occasion, somewhat earlier, would have
been the time when Aristobulus was besieged by his brother
Hyrcanus and the Nabatean king in 65 b.c.
Who then was the teacher of righteousness? The original theory
did not answer this question, but an answer was soon proposed by
one of its advocates. Both Josephus and the Talmud record the
stoning of a man called Onias the Righteous in 65 b.c. He was a
saintly man and was believed to have brought rain by his prayers.
He was probably, it is thought, an Essene. He was stoned by the
followers of Hyrcanus for refusing to curse Aristobulus. If
Aristobulus was the wicked priest, one would suppose that he was
the one that put Onias to death, but it is suggested that perhaps
each party accused the other of the crime. Another difficulty is
that the wicked priest is supposed to have been punished by the
fall of Jerusalem, but according to Josephus the stoning of Onias
was punished by violent winds that destroyed the crops and
caused a famine. On the other hand, the Talmud regards this
famine as judgment for a different offense by the followers of
Hyrcanus. The conclusion is therefore drawn that there were two
stories about the death of Onias; indeed, he may actually have
been persecuted by both parties. Several weaknesses in this argu¬
ment have been pointed out. There is no evidence that Onias was
an Essene, or that he was the founder or reformer of a sect There
is no real reason to believe that he was in any sense a Messianic
figure or that, even if he was, he would be the teacher of right¬
eousness.
Quite apart from the identification of the teacher of righteous¬
ness, it is surprising that the interpretation of the incident on the
Identifications of Persons and Events 181
Day of Atonement as the conquest of Jerusalem by Pompey has
been accepted as widely as it has been. Even if the interpretations
of particular words we have found questionable could be accepted,
there would still be nothing in the passage to suggest the capture
of a city by a foreign army. If such an allusion was intended, it
is strange that no occasion for it was found in the passages con¬
cerning the Kittim. Why and how the capture of Jerusalem by
Pompey should be regarded as brought about by the teacher of
righteousness is not apparent, except as any national calamity
can be considered a divine punishment for any sin. As a matter of
fact, historians seriously question the statement of Josephus that
Jerusalem fell on the Day of Atonement.
This theory suffers further from the weakness already found in
several of the others, the necessity of postulating two wicked
priests. Passages in the commentary which imply that the wicked
priest's punishment is still in the future are taken to refer not to
Aristobulus II but to Hyrcanus II, who was high priest from the
fall of Jerusalem to the Parthian invasion of Palestine in 40 b.c.
Since the commentary does not refer to this event, Dupont-
Sommer believes that it was written shortly before 40 b.c.
The statement that the wicked priest “was named according to
the truth when he first took office, but when he had begun to rule
in Israel his heart was lifted up," is taken to mean that while
Hyrcanus was high priest during the reign of Alexandra, he for¬
sook God by becoming also ruler after the fall of Aristobulus in
63. Since Hyrcanus was only a figurehead under the Roman
dominion, this interpretation of the passage is not very impressive.
The building of a city in blood by the prophet of the lie is inter¬
preted as an allusion to the permission given to Hyrcanus II in
47 b.c. to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. It has been pointed out,
however, that permission to repair breaches in the temple en¬
closure did not make Hyrcanus a city-builder.
The theory maintains also that “the last priests of Jerusalem,”
whose wealth is to be delivered to the Kittim, are Aristobulus II
and Hyrcanus H. This is more plausible than the idea that the
wicked priest is a dual figure; at least we have here “priests"
ig2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
instead of “the wicked priest ” If Aristobulus and Hyrcanus arc
the “last priests of Jerusalemit does not follow that any passage
that mentions the wicked priest refers to either of them.
Altogether the theory that the wicked priest means both
Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II raises more questions than it an¬
swers. It seems strange that after speaking first of Aristobulus II
the commentator should turn to Hyrcanus in the eighth column,
then return to Aristobulus in the ninth column, again to Hyrcanus
in the tenth column, back to Aristobulus in the eleventh column,
and to Hyrcanus again at the bottom of column eleven and the top
of column twelve. This is not in itself, of course, a conclusive
objection. As I have said before, the commentator was not bound
by our conceptions of logical procedure. In referring to one
priest or the other he would have been guided by what the par¬
ticular text he was interpreting suggested to him. Still, such an
extreme oscillation back and forth arouses some misgiving. The
chief difficulty, however, with this as with other similar theories,
is that nothing in the text suggests a double or multiple applica¬
tion except the fact that it is difficult to find one historical char¬
acter to whom all the passages can be applied. Dupont-Sommer
himself, in fact, now declares himself ready to recognize Hyrcanus
II alone as the wicked priest, provided the whole ministry of the
teacher of righteousness is dated before 63 b.c.
Elliger also places the events of the commentary in the Roman
period, but avoids the weakness of a plural identification of the
wicked priest. Aristobulus and also Antigonus, who succeeded
Hyrcanus in 40 b.c., are eliminated for several reasons, including
the fact that the enemies to whom they were delivered were the
Romans, whereas the enemies to ’whom the wicked priest was
delivered seem to be distinguished from the Kittim in the com¬
mentary. Hyrcanus II is thus left as the most likely candidate. His
enemies were the Parthians, who took him captive and, by cutting
off his ears, made him ineligible to serve again as high priest.
Since nothing in the Commentary shows any knowledge of the
ransom of Hyrcanus by Herod in 37/36 b.c., the date of the
commentary, Elliger concludes, must fall between 40 and 37/36.
Identifications of Persons and Events 183
A few theories have been proposed which place the characters
of our story in the Christian era. While the archeological evidence
now excludes a date after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.d., this
fact should not prevent us from giving any consideration to theories
that place the date of the Habakkuk Commentary after that date.
Later “intrusions" are not unknown to archeologists. If we dis¬
covered a document clearly reflecting events of the twentieth
century a.d., any archeological evidence that pointed to an earlier
date would have to be re-examined. Plausible arguments for im¬
possible theories may at least expose the danger of relying too
much upon obscure and ambiguous historical allusions.
A date in the first century a.d., of course, would not be arche-
ologically impossible, though the paleography of the scroll would
make it rather hard to accept. The reference to building a city in
blood has been supposed by Ben Zion Katz to indicate that the
commentary was written during the reign of the emperor Tiberius
(14-37 a.d. ), the city in question being Tiberias, which was built
by Herod Antipas (4 B.C.-39 a.d.) and named in honor of the
emperor. The preacher of the lie who enticed many to build the
city is thought to be a follower of the famous Rabbi Hillel, who
advised Jews to settle in Tiberias in spite of reports that the city
was built over a cemetery.
In other passages references to events of the first century aj>.
are found. In 6 aj>., when the Roman prefect of Syria took a census
of Judea for purposes of taxation, the high priest Joazer ben
Boethus induced the people of Jerusalem to submit to the census,
but in Galilee a violent revolt broke out under the leadership of
Judas the Galilean. With him was associated a Pharisee named
Sadduk or Zadok. Josephus names Judah and Zadok as the founders
erf what he ctlb the “fourth philosophy" in Judaism. It has been
suggested that the wicked priest who persecuted the teacher of
righteousness was Joazer ben Boethus, and the teacher of right¬
eousness was Zadok the Pharisee. The “counsel of the community”
(instead of “council”—the Hebrew word may mean either) is
taken to mean the advice of Judas the Galilean and Zadok the
Pharisee not to submit to enrollment or taxation; the “simple ones
x&j The Dead Sea Scrolls
of Judah” are supposed to be those who allowed themselves to be
counted. This is clearly impossible, because the "simple ones of
Judah” are the "doers of the law,” evidently the followers of the
teacher of righteousness.
The crucial passage concerning the events on the Day of Atone¬
ment is connected also with Zadok the Pharisee. He advocated a
calendar in which every month had thirty days; this made the
Day of Atonement fall on a day which for the followers of Hillel,
who determined the festivals by observation of the moon, would
be a profane day. Joazer ben Boethus, it is supposed, made the
followers of Zadok stumble by prescribing work on the day which
for them was the Day of Atonement. We have seen a similar sug¬
gestion applied to an earlier period. Other details of this theory are
less important. The situation contemplated by it lies within a
period when the commentary may possibly have been written.
On the whole, however, it seems no more appropriate or convinc¬
ing than any of the others.
The most startling of all theories concerning the identification
of the characters in our document is that of Teicher. According to
him the teacher of righteousness was Jesus, who was venerated as
the true prophet by the Jewish Christian sect called Ebionites.
The name Ebionite is derived from a Hebrew word meaning
“poor.” This word occurs in the commentary, and Teicher takes
it to be an explicit reference to the Ebionites. The preacher of the
lie is supposed to be the Apostle Paul, whom the Ebionites re¬
garded as a false apostle and a traitor to the Gospel. Most readers
will find little in the commentary that recalls either Jesus or PauL
It must be recognized, however, that what the theory contem¬
plates is not the Jesus and Paul of the New Testament but the
ideas of them held by the Ebionites. This theory too lies within
the limits of chronological possibility. It is less plausible than
several other theories, but more must be said about it when we
consider the problem of identifying the Qumran community.
For one who considers all these theories without prejudice, and
with no sense of obligation to propose a new theory to end all
Identifications of Persons and Events 185
theories, it will hardly seem that the result of the debate can be
stated with a confident Q. E. D. Perhaps not even one individual,
group, or event has been identified with certainty. The Kittim are
probably the Romans, but not certainly. Whether they had already
conquered Palestine when the Habakkuk Commentary was writ¬
ten is still less certain. The scholars who have discussed these
problems have all been more successful in refuting one another's
theories than in establishing their own.
It is easier to find identifications for the wicked priest than for
the teacher of righteousness, and identifications of the house of
Absalom are all too plentiful, yet no priest recorded in history
quite corresponds at every point to the wicked priest described in
the commentary. If even one passage clearly and certainly referred
to a particular individual, that fact could be accepted, even though
other passages still remained obscure. Unfortunately we cannot
get beyond a debatable degree of probability with regard to any
passage.
After all, our sources for the history of the Jews in Hellenistic
and Roman times are not so exhaustive or so completely reliable
in detail that we can expect to find in them accounts of individuals
and movements capable of being equated at every point with the
data of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Every document reflects a particular
point of view, and the point of view reported by the Dead Sea
Scrolls was rejected and condemned by those from whom our
other sources have come. Just as we find almost no reference to
Jesus in Roman history, it should not be altogether surprising if
the rise of a dissenting group and the career of its leader have left
no trace in the extant sources for the history of the period.
If the identifications of individuals and groups must remain un¬
certain, our inquiry has not been entirely fruitless from the point of
view of our major purpose in undertaking it. What concerns us
here is the time when the Commentary of Habukkuk was written,
as indicated by its historical allusions. The variety and range of
possible applications is perhaps disappointingly wide, but it is
not entirely unlimited. At least we can see that within the limits
x gQ The Dead Sea Scrolls
indicated by archeology and paleography there is abundant room
for the events to which the book refers and the composition of
the book itself.
We can be a little more definite than that. If the Kittim are the
Romans, the Romans were at least in sight at the time when the
commentary was written. If their occupation of Palestine had not
yet taken place, it was at least contemplated as imminent. On
the other hand, the Jewish revolt against Rome and the destruc¬
tion of the temple were not within the author's range of view.
There is nothing to suggest that he knew of the reign of Herod,
and the one passage that might be taken to refer to the Roman
procurators can with equal or greater appropriateness be inter¬
preted otherwise. •
In brief, the Commentary on Habakkuk was in atttorobability
written, at the earliest, not very long before 63 B.C., and at the
latest not long after that date. In other words, its composition falls
roughly in the last century b.c., between 150 and 100 years before
the final abandonment of the caves in the Wady Qumran. This
agrees with the indications of paleography that our manuscript of
the commentary is one of the younger members of the family of
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
IX
Historical Allusions in the
Other Documents
mJTJiJTririJiruTJiJTririJTJ^
None of the other Dead Sea Scrolls compares with the Habakkuk
Commentary in the abundance of its historical allusions. There
are many such allusions, however, in the Damascus Document,
two incomplete manuscripts of which were discovered in a genizah
in Old Cairo near the end of the nineteenth century and published
by Solomon Schechter in 1910. In March 1948, when we were
reading the Habakkuk Commentary for the first time in Jerusalem,
I said to Brownlee and Trever, I remember, “This reminds me of
the Damascus Document." They immediately went to our library
and looked up Schechter’s publication. The facsimile of one column
Schechter had printed showed them at once that the manuscripts
of the Damascus Document were much later than the Dead Sea
Scrolls, but the similarity of contents was unmistakable. I remem¬
ber Brownlee's enthusiasm when he found the teacher of right¬
eousness and other characters of the Habakkuk Commentary in
the Damascus Document. In our preliminary description of the
scrolls in the Biblical Archaeologist for September 1948, I men¬
tioned this connection (p. 58). Every writer who has discussed
the Habakkuk Commentary and the Manual of Discipline has had
something to say about it
Because of this obvious and extraordinary affinity, it will be con-
187
,88 The Dead Sea Scrolls
venient to consider the historical allusions in the Damascus Docu¬
ment before we proceed to those of the other Dead Sea Scrolls.
First, however, something must be said concerning the nature and
significance of the relationship between the scrolls and the Damas¬
cus Document Many characteristic and unusual expressions are
shared by the Damascus Document and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Not
only the teacher of righteousness but the man of the lie and the
preacher of the lie appear in the Damascus Document as well as in
the Habakkuk Commentary. The expression “the new covenant"
occurs also in both of these documents, though at present it is
found in the commentary only by a restoration of the text which
is practically certain. Even the Hebrew word pishro, which I
translate “this means," is used once in the Damascus Document.
There are also several distinctive terms that appear both in the
Damascus Document and in the Manual of Discipline. The char¬
acteristic words for “rank,” “order,” and “purity” (applied to
“sacred food”) may be mentioned as examples. The second of
these terms occurs frequently in both documents in a formula
introducing new sections, “And this is the order for . . . The
expression “enter the covenant" occurs once in the Manual of
Discipline in the same form used in the Damascus Document,
though elsewhere the Manual uses a different verb. The “lot of
Belial" and the “dominion of Belial” are characteristic of both the
Damascus Document and the Manual of Discipline. An unusual
word meaning “tribulation” occurs once in each of these two
documents. A mysterious book called “the book of HGW” (or per¬
haps HGY), which is referred to in the Damascus Document, is
not mentioned in the scrolls published by the American Schools
of Oriental Research or those published by Sukenik, but it is
named in one of the “two columns” related to the Manual of
Discipline that were acquired by the Palestine Museum.
Not only do we have these and other instances of a common
terminology; there are also rather extended passages that appear
in almost identical form in the Damascus Document and the
Manual of Discipline. Some of the most striking of these may be
quoted to show how close the relationship is. The passages from
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents i8g
the Manual will be indicated by the letter M, those from the
Damascus Document by the letter D.
( m ) . . . and to love all that he has chosen and hate all that he has
rejected, to be far from all evil and cleave to all good works, and to do
truth and righteousness and justice in the land; to walk no longer in the
stubbornness of a guilty heart and eyes of fornication.
(D) And now, my sons, listen to me, and I will uncover your eyes to
see and understand the works of God, and to choose what he likes and
reject what he hates; to walk perfectly in all his ways, and not to go
about with thoughts of a guilty impulse and eyes of fornication.
(M) Those who are passing into the covenant shall confess after
them, saying, "We have committed iniquity, we have transgressed, we
have sinned, wo have done evil, we and our fathers before us, in walk¬
ing contrary to the statutes of truth."
(D) ... and confess before God, "We have sinned, we have done
wickedly, both we and our fathers, in walking contrary to the statutes of
the covenant."
(M) So they shall do year by year all the days of the dominion of
Belial. The priests shall pass over first in order, according to their spirits,
one after another; and the Levites shall pass over after them, and all
the people shall pass over third in order, one after another.
(D) They shall all be enrolled by their names: the priests first, the
Levites second, the sons of Israel third, and the proselyte fourth.
( M) . . . that each may not walk in the stubbornness of his heart or
go astray after his heart and his eyes and the thought of his guilty im¬
pulse.
(D) ... and not to go about with thoughts of a guilty impulse and
eyes of fornication; for many went astray in them, and mighty men of
valor stumbled in them, formerly and until now. In their walking in the
stubbornness of their hearts the watchers of heaven fell
(M) ... he shall reprove him and shall not bring upon him in¬
iquity; and also a man shall not bring against his neighbor a word be¬
fore the masters without having rebuked him before witnesses.
(D) You shall reprove your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of
him . . . any man of those who enter the covenant who brings a charge
against his neighbor without having rebuked him before witnesses.
igo The Dead Sea Scrolls
(M) And in every place where there shall be ten men of the council
of the community there shall not be absent from them a priest
(D) And in a place having ten there shall not be absent a priest
learned in the book of HGW.
(M) . . . but they shall judge by the first judgments by which the
men of the community began to be disciplined, until there shall come a
prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. These arc the statutes for
the wise man, that he may walk in them with every living being.
(D) And this is the order of the session of the camps. Those who
walk in these during the period of wickedness until arises the Messiah
of Aaron and Israel. . . . And these are the statutes for the wise man,
that he may walk in them with every living being.
So close is the relationship that at some points the text of one or
the other document can be corrected by comparision with the
other. For example, there is an expression in the Damascus Docu¬
ment that seems to mean "unique teacher" or "teacher of the only
(or favored) one.” In another passage we find the expression "men
of the only (or favored) one." The Manual of Discipline now
shows that these expressions should be very slightly emended to
read respectively "teacher of the community" and "men of the
community." There is a Hebrew word in the Damascus Document
which Schechter copied as rwy. This made no sense, and various
emendations were proposed. L. Rost, in his edition of the text, read
ny (“mysteries of”), and this is now confirmed by the frequent
occurrence of the same expression in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In one
instance a correction of what seems to me to be a scribe’s mistake
in the Manual of Discipline is suggested by a similar passage in
the Damascus Document: the meaningless word xo'm should
probably read tv’bn (“and guilt").
Apart from such close contacts in language, there are many more
general similarities in ideas and points of view, such as the interest
of both documents in Aaron and the sons of Zadok, the idea of a
Messiah from the priestly family of Aaron instead of from the royal
tribe of Judah, and the manner of citing and interpreting the Old
Testament
On the other hand, there are some differences worth noting. For
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 191
example, while the Damascus Document regularly speaks of com¬
ing into the covenant, the Manual of Discipline usually speaks of
passing into the covenant. The Damascus Document speaks of the
congregation or the association, while the Manual speaks of the
community. The Hebrew word mw§b is used in different ways in
the two documents: in the Manual of Discipline it means a session
of the group; in the Damascus Document it sometimes seems to
mean a settlement. The Damascus Document uses a word for
property (m'd) that does not appear in the Manual. A rather in¬
teresting detail is the fact that to the list of priests, Levites, and
people (or sons of Israel) the Damascus Document adds the
proselyte, who is never mentioned in the Manual of Discipline.
There is also much in the Damascus Document about camps and
a little about cities, whereas the Manual of Discipline has nothing
concerning either. These differences suggest that the two docu¬
ments come from the same general religious movement but do not
represent exactly the same group within the movement, or perhaps
the same stage in its history.
The conclusions to be drawn from these comparisons will de¬
pend upon the answers to two questions: first, is the Damascus
Document earlier or later than the Dead Sea Scrolls? and second,
when was the Damascus Document itself written? The discovery
of ancient fragments of the Damascus Document in the caves of
the Wady Qumran has already been mentioned. Even without this
discovery the references to the temple in the Damascus Document
show that the book must have been written when worship was
still going on in the temple—i.e., before 70 a.d.
It has been generally supposed that the Dead Sea Scrolls were
of earlier origin than the Damascus Document. One reason for this
belief is the fact that a flight into the wilderness and a settlement
in the land of Damascus seem to be presupposed in the Damascus
Document, while there is no clear indication that such a flight
and a return to Judea had taken place when the Dead Sea Scrolls
were written. It seemed natural, therefore, to suppose that the
flight referred to in the Damascus Document was probably the
occasion for abandoning the scrolls in the caves, and many scholars
192 The Dead Sea Scrolls
still proceed on this assumption. Further study and discussion have
raised questions about the references in the Damascus Document
itself, and indications that this composition may be older than
the scrolls have been detected.
Arguments pointing in the opposite direction have been ad¬
vanced also. M. H. Gottstein finds in the Damascus Document a
relaxation of the strict discipline and close organization reflected
by the Manual of Discipline. On the ground that the normal de¬
velopment in such a group is “from a strictly disciplined organiza¬
tion to a more and more loosely knit community," he concludes
that the Damascus Document is later than the Manual of Dis¬
cipline. At least, he says, the burden of proof is on him who main¬
tains the contrary. While this seems fair enough if definite evidence
is found to support it, a sociological generalization cannot take
the place of historical evidence.
It is conceivable that the Damascus Document was written dur¬
ing the same period in which the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced,
so that it is later than some of them but earlier than others. Thus
Rost argues that the Damascus Document is later than the Manual
of Discipline, but he maintains that it does not represent merely
a later stage of the same movement. The group represented by the
Damascus Document, he suggests, tried to win over the older group
represented by the Manual of Discipline. The Thanksgiving Psalms
• also, Rost believes, are older than the Damascus Document, be¬
cause they do not yet mention the teacher of righteousness, and
the word for "community,” which is characteristic of the Manual
of Discipline and occurs at least once in the Thanksgiving Psalms,
has been practically replaced by other words in the Damascus
Document. There is also a very close relation between the ending
of one of these psalms and the closing psalm of the Manual of
Discipline. But while the Damascus Document is considered later
than the Manual of Discipline, Rost maintains that the Habakkuk
Commentary is later than the Damascus Document, because the
latter refers to the teacher of righteousness as still living and says
nothing about his suffering, of which much is made in the Habak-v
kuk Commentary.
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 193
Another possibility to be taken into account is that the Damascus
Document itself is not a single composition written at one time,
but a compilation of material of different dates. The portions found
in the Old Cairo genizah were parts of two, if not three, different
manuscripts. Two pieces (Ai and Aa) seem to be written in the
same script and were probably parts of one manuscript, but the
script of another piece (B) is very different and apparently some-
what later. To a large extent the two major manuscripts run paral¬
lel, but there are many differences in parallel passages, including
sometimes the insertion in one manuscript of material that is
entirely lacking in the other.
Isaac Rabinowitz distinguishes three literary strata in the Da¬
mascus Document: one is a “discourse of admonition,’* of which
parallel versions are given in manuscripts Ai and B; the second
consists of later “glosses" and comments in these same manuscripts;
the third stratum is the legal material contained only in fragment
A2. A more elaborate analysis has been worked out by A. Rubin¬
stein, who also finds three major portions of somewhat different
date. The earliest is the “historical-admonitory” part; the second,
which appears in two separate sections, consists of “camp rules"
developed in the time when the members of the community were
living in camps; the third portion, which has been inserted between
the two sections of the second part, consists of “urban laws, which
reflect a time when the members had settled in cities. There are
also some passages that were probably added at a still later time.
The closest parallels with the Manual of Discipline, Rubinstein
finds, are in the second section of the “camp rules."
The Manual of Discipline itself may be a compilation from sev¬
eral sources. The arrangement of subjects does not follow any
clear logical order, and there is sometimes no connection in thought
between the successive sections. The work seems to consist of
material from several different compositions put together in scrap¬
book fashion. Most of the sections contain rules by which the
life of the community was governed, but in the midst of these
there is the little theological statement about the two spirits in
man, which is quite different from anything else in the document.
194 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and at the end there is a devotional poem like the Thanksgiving
Psalms.
Our discussion of the relationship between the scrolls and the
Damascus Document has touched upon some questions we are
not quite ready to take up, but it seems necessary as a preparation
for examining the historical allusions in the Damascus Document.
Before returning to that problem, we may summarize the major
results of our hasty survey. The Damascus Document is evidently
a product of the same general period as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It is probably later than the earliest scrolls, but may very well
be earlier than the latest ones. The exact relationship can be de¬
termined, if at all, only by a closer examination of the Damascus
Document itself, and in particular of its historical allusions.
One passage that enters prominently into the discussion refers
to the teacher of righteousness and to the man of the lie: “And
from the day of the gathering in of the unique teacher until the
a nnih i la tion of all the men of war who returned with the man of
the lie will be [or was] about forty years." (Charles’s translation is
somewhat different. He reads: **. . . who walked with the man of
the lie about forty years,” but this leaves the sentence incom¬
plete.) Here we learn of an interval of forty years after the death
("gathering in”) of the “unique teacher," extending to some event
either in the past or still in the future. If a future event is referred
to, it may be the expected coming of “a Messiah from Aaron and
Israel.” An unspecified interval “from the day of the gathering
in of the unique teacher until a Messiah arises from Aaron and
from Israel” is mentioned In another passage.
If the statement about the forty years is interpreted as referring
to the past, not only has the death of the unique teacher already
taken place; it occurred forty years before another event that is
already past, whatever may be meant by "the annihilation of all
the men of war,” et cetera. The death of the unique teacher must
then have occurred more than forty years before the composition
of the Damascus Document. Another passage, however, speaks of
those "who give heed to the voice of a teacher of righteousness,”
implying that the teacher is still alive. For this reason L. Rost, as
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 195
we have seen, distinguishes the teacher of righteousness from the
unique teacher, whom he takes to be the founder of the sect
We have seen that Rost considers the Damascus Document
older than the Habakkuk Commentary, because the persecution
and suffering of the teacher of righteousness are apparently not
yet known to the writer of the Damascus Document. Believing,
with Dupont-Sommer, that the Habakkuk Commentary was writ¬
ten at about 50 b . c ., Rost consequently dates the Damascus Docu¬
ment at some time before that. If the unique teacher had been
dead for more than forty years, his death must then have occurred
at about 100 b . c . His career therefore falls in the Hasmonean pe¬
riod, in the second half of the second century b.c. The teacher of
righteousness, however, according to this interpretation of the
evidence, lived about half a century later, at about the beginning
of the Roman period.
A still more crucial passage in the Damascus Document reads
as follows:
For when those who forsook him trespassed, he hid his face from
Israel and from bis sanctuary; but when he remembered the covenant
of the ancients, he left a remnant to Israel and did not give them up to
destruction. And in the period of wrath-three hundred and ninety
years, when he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon—he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and from
Aaron a root of planting to inherit the land and to grow fat on the good¬
ness of his soiL Then they perceived their iniquity and knew that they
were guilty men; yet they were like men blind and groping for the way
for twenty years. And God observed their works, that they sought him
with perfect heart; and he raised up for them a teacher of righteousness
to lead them in the way of his heart
In the next to the last sentence of this passage R. H. Charles
translates, “they knew that they were guilty men and had like
the blind been groping,” implying that the twenty years of blind¬
ness preceded the sprouting of the root from Aaron and Israel.
It seems more natural to take the verb, as most interpreters have
done, to indicate an additional period of 20 years after the end
of the 390 years. The number 390 is obviously taken from Ezekiel
196 The Dead Sea Scrolls
4:5, which says that this will be the number of the years of Israel
p unishm ent. Where the number 20 comes from is not apparent If
the "root of planting" means the community of covenanters, as is
generally supposed, then the teacher of righteousness would seem
to have appeared after the community had been established and
had been blindly groping for twenty years.
On the assumption that the 390 years were reckoned as begin¬
ning with the conquest of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 b.c.,
this passage has commonly been interpreted as meaning that the
visitation and the sprouting of the root occurred in 196 and the
teacher of righteousness appeared in 176 b.c. This was the prevail¬
ing interpretation before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
One of the first to apply it to the interpretation of the scrolls was
Bo Reicke, whose identifications of the teacher of righteousness
and the wicked priest we have already noted in connection with
the Habakkuk Commentary. It will be remembered that Reicke’s
theory—which he has since modified—identified the teacher of
righteousness at least partially with the high priest Onias III. Onias
was deposed in 175 b.c. How long had he been high priest before
he was deposed? Josephus puts his accession in the reign of Seleu-
cus IV (187-175 b.c.); it must therefore have occurred not many
years before 178 b.c., the date inferred from the references to 390
years and 20 years in the Damascus Document
Other more or less plausible computations have been based on
the 390 years and 20 years. Zeitlin adduces a late Talmudic tradi¬
tion to the effect that the temple stood for 420 years. Adding this
to the 70 years of the Babylonian exile, he gets a total of 490
years. The great Rabbi Hillel is said to have become the head of
the Sanhedrin 100 years before the destruction of the temple. Sub¬
tracting 100 from 490, Zeitlin gets 390 as the number of years from
the beginning of the Babylonian exile to the appointment of
Hillel. This implies that the author of the Damascus Document
was acquainted with a late rabbinic tradition, which is quite in
accord with Zeitlin’s belief that the Damascus Document is a
medieval composition. But Zeitlin identifies Hillel with the "man
of the lie," whereas it is the unique teac h er whose coming is dated
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 197
20 years after the end of the 390 years. The 20 years, in fact, seem
to be ignored in Zeitlin's chronology. He speaks of 20 years as the
time when Hillel and Menahem were together at the head of the
Sanhedrin, but this is derived from a combination of the 20 years
of this passage with a questionable interpretation of the entirely
different passage about the 40 years from the death of the unique
teacher to the destruction of the men of violence.
Weis accepts Zeitlin’s interpretation of the 390 years as extend¬
ing from the beginning of the Babylonian exile to the appointment
of Hillel, but he adds that if Hillel was appointed 100 years before
the destruction of the temple, his appointment must be dated in
30 b.c. The 20 years will then bring us to 10 b.g According to
Tertullian, the birth of Jesus occurred in 9-6 b.c. Weis therefore
infers that Jesus may have been the unique teacher of the Damas¬
cus Document and one of the series of teachers of righteousness
honored by the medieval Karaites.
A searching critique of all these theories has been presented re¬
cently by Isaac Rabinowitz. They all rest, he points out, on the
assumption that the phrase “when he gave them [or, more literally,
‘to his giving them’] into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar,” means
“after he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar ” This is
contrary to normal Hebrew usage. The phrase would ordinarily
mean either “at his giving” (ie., “when he gave”) or “to his giving”
(i.e., “until he gave”). Rabinowitz takes it in the latter sense. In
other words, the period of 390 years did not follow but preceded
the fall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c.
The author of the Damascus Document, Rabinowitz argues,
found the figure 390 in Ezekiel 4:5 and interpreted it as referring
to the time preceding the Babylonian exile. The years of the reigns
of all the kings of Judah, from the accession of Rehoboam to the
eleventh year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was taken by Ne¬
buchadnezzar, add up to 393. In II Chronicles 11:16-17 three
years of good conduct at the beginning of Rehoboam's reign are
mentioned; subtracting these three years, we get 390 years, or the
duration of the “period of wrath ” The “visitation” was therefore
the destruction of Jerusalem. It is interesting to recall that Louis
ig8 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Ginzberg long ago interpreted this passage as referring to the
period before the Babylonian exile. He began farther back, how¬
ler, and supposed that the figures indicated the reigns of all the
kings from Saul to Josiah. He therefore held drat the teacherof
righteousness was probably the high priest Hdkiah, who redis¬
covered the book of the law in the temple during the re.gn of
The explanation of the 390 years is bound up with the Interpreta-
tion of several references to a departure from Judah and a sojourn
in the land of Damascus. It is these references that have caused
the name “Damascus Document” or “Damascus Fragments to be
given to this composition, which Schechter, when he published it,
called “Fragments of a Zadokite Document.” Following a quota¬
tion from Ezekiel 44^5 concerning the Levites and the sons of
Zadok, the text continues, 'The priests are the captivity of Israel
who went out from the land of Judah, and [the Levites are] those
who joined them” In another place a quotation of Numbers 21:18
introduces this statement: The well is the law, and those who dug
it are the captivity of Israel, who went out from the land of
Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus ” The star of both
Amos 5:26-27 and Numbers 24:17 * said to be “the interpreter of
the law who came to Damascus.”
Two passages mention those “who entered the new covenant
in the land of Damascus." Rabinowitz argues that the phrase “in
the land of Damascus” here modifies not the verb "entered but
the noun “covenant"; in other words, the meaning is “those who
entered the new covenant (made) in the land of Damascus.” This
is quite possible, but even so it is implied that those who first made
the new covenant were at the time in “the land of Damascus ; hi
fact, that is explicitly stated in a passage denouncing those who
“spoke error against the statutes of righteousness and rejected the
firm covenant which they had established in the land of Damas¬
cus, that is, the new covenant.”
Ever since the first publication of the Damascus Document the
prevailing interpretation of these passages has been that the fol¬
lowers of the teacher of righteousness, compelled by persecution
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 199
to leave Judah, emigrated to the region of Damascus, and there
under his leadership established a new covenant. In the Manual
of Discipline there is a reference to going into the wilderness,
which might conceivably be connected with this departure from
Judah. In that case, since the Manual of Discipline can hardly have
been composed later than about 100 b.c., the emigration would
have to be dated in the second century b.c. If the withdrawal from
Judah has any connection with the abandonment of the manu¬
scripts in the caves, however, it cannot be referred to in the Da¬
mascus Document, because the fragments found in the caves show
that the community already possessed the Damascus Document.
The Manual of Discipline, in fact, clearly defines the going into
the wilderness as a withdrawal for the study of the law. It may
very well mean the establishment of the community in the neigh¬
borhood of Khirbet Qumran, which is “wilderness enow." It may
even, for that matter, refer to the withdrawal of individuals from
society to devote themselves to the study of the law.
Those scholars who date the origin of the community of the new
covenant in the pre-Maccabean period see references to events
of that period in the statements of the Damascus Document about
departing from the land of Judah. It is suggested, for example,
that the origin of the Dead Sea community is illuminated by I
Maccabees 2:29-38, which says that in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes “men who set at nought the king’s command" went
into hiding in the wilderness. Even the flight of Onias HI to
Daphne has been mentioned as throwing light, at least by analogy,
on the emigration of the covenanters to the land of Damascus; the
analogy, however, is at best remote.
The hypothesis of a flight to Damascus in the time of Antiochus
Epiphanes encounters the objection that men seeking refuge from
his wrath would not go to Damascus, which was in his territory.
To this Rowley replies that during the period of confusion after
the death of Antiochus, when Jonathan and Simon were playing
off one contender for the Seleucid throne against another, a group
persecuted by Jonathan or Simon might find refuge at Damascus
under a ruler hostile to the Jewish government. Perhaps it was at
2oo The Dead Sea Scrolls
the time when the Hasmoneans assumed civil power, Rowley sug¬
gests, that the group organized and led by “the star” migrated to
Damascus. The accession of Simon in 142 b . c . has been thought by
Verm& to be the time when the persecution of the group, after
the disappearance of the teacher of righteousness, and the installa¬
tion of the sect in the more hospitable region of Damascus prob¬
ably took place.
Others identify the flight from Judah with a later incident in
the reign of Alexander Janneus (103-76 b . c .). At that time, Jo¬
sephus says, eight hundred of the Pharisees were crucified, and
eight thousand members of the party fled by night and lived in
exile. So long as it was supposed that the pottery found in the first
cave was Hellenistic, a date in the time of Alexander Janneus
seemed entirely probable for the abandonment of the region, and
it was reasonable to connect this with the flight to Damascus. The
subsequent excavation of Khirbet Qumran and the exploration of
the other caves has made any such hypothesis untenable. The
scarcity of coins from the reign of Herod at Khirbet Qumran sug¬
gests that there was an interruption in the occupation of the site
at that time, between its first and second periods.
If the flight of the Pharisees in the time of Alexander Janneus
had anything at all to do with the Qumran community, it would
seem to have been the occasion for the establishment of the settle¬
ment at that place, because it was at about that time, as the coins
show, that the first period of the occupation of the site began. Any
theory connecting the persecution of the Pharisees by Alexander
Janneus with the covenanters, however, implies the questionable
assumption that the covenanters were Pharisees. The validity of
that assumption we consider in Chapter XIII.
Dupont-Sommer holds that the sect of the new covenant prob¬
ably migrated to Damascus in 63 b . c ., about six months after the
conquest of Jerusalem by the Romans. Since, as he believes, the
teacher of righteousness had been put to death by Aristobulus II,
the group fled from Judea under a new leader known as the
“star." Rabinowitz objects that this would put the sect at Damascus
during the time when DuPont-Sommer himself supposes that the
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 201
Habakkuk Commentary was written, although the commentary
makes no reference at all to Damascus.
Any connection between the flight to Damascus and the aban¬
donment of the caves was made very doubtful by the discovery of
fragments of the Damascus Document in the caves. Bowley sug¬
gests that perhaps only a part of the sect migrated to Damascus;
or, if the migration included the whole group, a part or all of it
returned later. The library of scrolls, he adds, may have been
left in the caves when the sect migrated to Damascus, recovered
when they returned, and finally deposited again at some later time
of peril.
The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness speaks
of the conflict as taking place when the sons of light returned from
"the desert of the peoples to encamp in the desert of Jerusalem.”
Conceivably the desert of the peoples might be the land of Da¬
mascus, and the desert of Jerusalem might then be the desolate
region overlooking the Dead Sea. It should also be noted, how¬
ever, that “the desert of the peoples" would be an appropriate
designation for the Diaspora, the dispersion of Jews in gentile
lands; “the desert of Jerusalem" might also be a figurative expres¬
sion of the spiritual condition of Jerusalem from the point of view
of the covenanters.
There is no necessary connection between the time of the migra¬
tion and the time of the return. Verm&s, who believes that the
migration took place as early as 142 b.c., thinks that the first op¬
portunity to return did not come until the end of the Hasmonean
dynasty in 37 b.c. Dupont-Sommer, while placing the migration
much later than Vermes does, agrees with him as to the time of
the return, but suggests that while the main body of covenanters
returned to Palestine in the reign of Herod, a group of them still
remained at Damascus. He believes that the Damascus Document
was written at about the same time as the Habakkuk Commentary,
a little before 40 b . c ., when the return had not yet taken place.
The whole idea of a migration of the sect to Damascus, as well
as the interpretation of the 390 and 20 years in terms of the his¬
tory of the covenanters, is rejected by Isaac Rabinowitz. He points
202 The Dead Sea Scrolls
out that the Damascus passages are based on the prediction of
exile "beyond Damascus” in Amos 5:26f ( which is quoted in the
Damascus Document, though as a matter of fact the manuscript
does not read "beyond Damascus” but "from the tents of Da¬
mascus.” The passage about the 390 years indicates the destruc¬
tion of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar as the time of the divine
visitation; the prophecy of Amos, which was actually fulfilled by
the Assyrian conquest of the kingdom of Israel in 721 B.C., must
have been applied by the writer of the Damascus Document to
the Babylonian conquest of the kingdom of Judah more than a
century later. In any case, "the land of Damascus," Rabinowitz be¬
lieves, means the whole area of Assyria and Babylonia, in which
the exiles were dispersed. From the standpoint of Palestine, it was
all "beyond Damascus.” The dispersed exiles were regarded as the
righteous remnant to whom the new covenant promised in Jere¬
miah 3i:3iff had been vouchsafed.
But if the sojourn in the land of Damascus means the existence of
the exiles in Babylonia and Assyria, who was "the interpreter of
the law who came to Damascus”? To this question Rabinowitz does
not give a satisfying answer. He takes the reference to the "in¬
terpreter of the law” to mean merely that there were among the
exiles experts in the art of combining texts so as to bring out hid¬
den meanings. Such an expounder of Torah, he remarks, was Ezra.
The connection with the "star out of Jacob,” however, in which
Rabinowitz sees a reference to the Davidic Messiah, implies at
least that the interpreter of the law was an individual, and one
highly honored by the covenanters. Who could have been meant
if the time of the Babylonian exile was in view is a difficult ques¬
tion. Here, it seems to me, is the weakest point in the argument of
Rabinowitz. On the general question of a migration to Damascus
and a later return, however, he has made a very strong case. He
has at least shown that all attempts to reconstruct the history of
the sect on the assumption that there was such a migration are
decidedly precarious.
There are other historical allusions in the Damascus Document,
but they help very little. The condemnation of marriage with a
Historical AUusions in the Other Documents 303
niece is understood by some scholars as an allusion to the marriage
of Joseph the son of Tobias with his own niece in the pre-Macca-
bean period. The validity of this interpretation, of course, stands
or falls with all the other supposed references to the same period.
Of itself, while fairly plausible, it is not very cogent. In connec¬
tion with a quotation of Deuteronomy 32:33 there is a reference
to “the kings of the peoples” and “the head of the kings of Greece,
who comes to take vengeance on them.” Here, if anywhere, one
might suspect a specific historical reference, but where one scholar
sees a clear reference to the Seleucid Antiochus Epiphanes an¬
other recognizes the Roman Pompey. One is reluctantly driven to
agree with Chaim Rabin, the latest editor of the Damascus Docu¬
ment, that it is still “much too early to come to any conclusions”
concerning the date of the composition of its component parts.
As for the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves, we have already ob¬
served that none of the other manuscripts approaches the Habak-
kuk Commentary in the richness of its historical allusions. The
one that comes nearest to it in this respect is The War of the Sons
of Light with the Sons of Darkness. This contains a brief reference
to “the Kittim of Assyria and Egypt.” Sukenik identified these
with the Ptolemies and Seleucids. Such a use of the term Kittim
would be thoroughly appropriate, because both the Ptolemies and
the Seleucids were Macedonians.
The designation of Syria as Assyria, however, has aroused con¬
siderable discussion. H.L. Ginsberg calls attention to the use
of Numbers 24:24 in Daniel 11:30, where the words of Balaam,
“But ships shall come from Kittim and shall afflict Assyria and
Eber,” are quoted in part and applied to the coming of the Ro¬
mans to Egypt in 168 b.c., when they compelled Antiochus Epiph¬
anes to give up his campaign against Ptolemy VI. The word
Assyria is not included in the quotation, but the application of the
verse shows that the writer of Daniel 11:30 understood the term in
Numbers 24:24 to mean the Seleucid kingdom of Syria. Ginsberg
considers this a “bold reinterpretation” on the part of the writer
of Daniel 11:30. There have been modem scholars who believed
that the original intention of Numbers 24:24 was to indicate the
204 Tte Dead Sea Scrolls
Seleucid kingdom by the term Assyria, but few would take that
position now. The point is that it was so understood by the writer
of Daniel 11:30 in the late pre-Maccabean period.
H. L. Ginsberg notes also that in several verses of Daniel 11 the
language of Isaiah 8:8, which refers to Assyria, “is applied to the
victorious sweep of the Seleucid armies.” Here again it is not
implied that the Seleucids were meant by the term Assyria in
Isaiah, though some modem scholars have actually seen such a
reference in several passages in the book of Isaiah and have ac¬
cordingly regarded these passages as late additions to the book.
There is one Old Testament passage in which the name Assyria
is taken by many scholars to refer to the Seleucids. This is Psalm
83:8. There is a striking resemblance between this psalm and a few
passages in The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Dark¬
ness. Not all commentators, of course, agree that Psalm 83 refers
to Syria in the Hellenistic period. The meaning of Assyria here de¬
pends on the date of the psalm, which is not certain. Some com¬
mentators, in fact, question any reference to a particular military
campaign. The significance of the psalm, they maintain, is not
historical but cultic, and the curse on the hostile nations is meant to
include all possible enemies of Israel in any period, past as well as
present or future. The relevance of this psalm with regard to the
use of the term Assyria for the Seleucid kingdom is therefore
somewhat uncertain, but the possibility that Assyria here means
Syria is not to be ignored.
The following passage from the book of Jubilees (13:1) has
been cited in this connection: “And Abram journeyed from H a r a n ,
and he took Sarai his wife and Lot his brother Haran's son to the
land of Canaan; and he came to Assyria, and proceeded to She-
chem, and dwelt near a lofty oak." Charles considers the name
Assyria in this place a mistake in the text As he punctuates the
sentence, Assyria seems to be a place or region in the land of
Canaan. It is possible, however, to suppose that the words “and he
came” begin a new sentence, which summarizes the whole jour¬
ney. In that case Assyria would be somewhere on the way from
Haran to Canaan and might very well mean Syria.
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 205
The expression “Kittim of Assyria” in the War scroll is undoubt¬
edly a cryptic reference to some power of the writer's own time.
This would not be the Assyrian empire unless the book was com¬
posed before the end of the seventh century b.c. Like the word
"Kittim* itself, Assyria is doubtless a disguised designation for a
much later nation. The opening sentences of the book of Judith
present a curiously anachronistic and probably deliberate mixture
of historical periods that is worth recalling in this connection. If
the reference to Assyria in the War scroll is a cryptic allusion to a
later nation, it affords no clue to the date of the composition but
must itself be interpreted in the light of other evidence.
The term Kittim need not have the same meaning in the War
scroll that it has in the Habakkuk Commentary. Several scholars
have argued that the War scroll, the Habakkuk Commentary, and
the Damascus Document are so much alike that they must belong
to the same period, and have therefore used the apparent reference
to the Ptolemies and the Seleucids in the War scroll as an argument
against the interpretation of the Kittim as the Romans in the com¬
mentary. Others, however, who believe that the commentary re¬
fers to the Romans, find no difficulty in recognizing the Ptolemies
and Seleucids in the Kittim of the War scroll, and consequendy
in accepting a date in the Hellenistic period for that document
Along with the Kittim, the scroll names the troops of Edom,
Moab, Ammon, and Philistia as the sons of darkness who constitute
the army of Belial. Hostility to Ammon and Moab is characteristic
of much of the Old Testament, especially the books of Chronicles.
The nations mentioned in the War scroll are all included also, to¬
gether with others, in Psalm 83. The region in which they lived,
east of the Jordan and the Dead Sea, was occupied in Hellenistic
times by other peoples equally hostile to the Jews, and sometimes
also by Jewish factions, whose opponents might have designated
them by the names of Israel's ancient foes. It has been said that
Psalm 83 becomes clear only when one recognizes that “the chil¬
dren of Lot* mentioned in it are the Tobiads of the pre-Maccabean
period. Some have been tempted to associate the War scroll with
the same period and situation.
20 6 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Some scholars have identified the war described in the War
scroll with the one referred to in Daniel 11:14: “In those times
many shall rise against the king of the south; and the men of vio¬
lence among your own people shall lift themselves up in order
to fulfill the vision; but they shall fail." This is commonly supposed
to refer to the time of Ptolemy V (203-181 b.c.), when the conflict
between the Tobiad Hyrcanus and his brothers divided the Jewish
nation. Reicke puts it slightly later, in the time of Antiochus Epiph-
anes (175-164 b.c.), when the brothers of Hyrcanus, after his
death, appealed to Antiochus for help.
Eissfeldt also places the war of the War scroll in the early years
of the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, before his desecration of the
temple. He interprets Edom as meaning Idumea, Moab and Am¬
mon as meaning the Nabatean and Hellenistic cities of Trans¬
jordan, and Philistia as meaning the Hellenistic cities of the coastal
plain. Rowley remarks that the mottoes inscribed on the banners
in the War scroll recall the battle slogans of the Maccabees. Rabi-
nowitz considers the War scroll a “document of triumph” and there¬
fore feels that it cannot have been written before the Maccabean
achievement of religious freedom in 164 b.c. or after Alcimus be¬
came high priest in 162. Reflecting particularly the victories of the
Maccabees against neighboring peoples, it must probably be
dated, he concludes, in 162 b.c.
Katz claims, however, that the use of trumpets in battle was
unknown in the Hasmonean period. Josephus, he recalls, says
of the followers of Judah the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee, in
the early first century a.d., that they passionately loved freedom
and recognized no ruler but God. This seems to Katz to be ex¬
plained and confirmed by the War scroll, which he therefore
thinks may have been written in the reign of Caligula (37-4 1
aj>. ), perhaps at the time of that emperor's demand that his statue
be set up in the temple at Jerusalem.
It must not be taken for granted that there is any specific histori¬
cal reference at all in the War scroll. Sukenik himself believed that
an actual war was envisaged, but many who read the first published
excerpts felt that the meaning was not historical but eschatological,
Historical Allusions in the Other Documents 207
with no more definite historical reference than any prediction of
the future. The elaborate directions for the army were thought
to represent either a purely apocalyptic vision or a liturgical re¬
ligious drama. Driver regarded these directions as intended merely
for the edification of the reader. An intermediate position was
taken by Hempel, who thought that the document reflected dreams
of a real, heroic war, but not one immediately contemplated. It
represented, he said, “the Utopian world of Chronicles.” Among
those who believed that the document is apocalyptic in nature,
some thought that if any historical peoples or events were referred
to they could not be identified; others thought that, as in the book
of Daniel, a real historical situation, that of the conflict between
the Hellenists and the Maccabees, could be recognized.
A brief summary of the contents of the scroll may be helpful at
this point. The “sons of light" are depicted as fighting a war against
the “sons of darkness.” Apparently the children of light win three
battles, the army of Belial wins three, and the perfect number of
seven is then completed (or soon to be completed) by the final
and decisive victory of the hosts of light. Detailed prescriptions
are given concerning such matters as tribal organization, the com¬
position of the army, the selection and age limits of the warriors,
the weapons and other equipment, and the conduct of the fighting.
Prayers, blessings, and an exhortation which is to be delivered
by the high priest before the battle, are given in full, with elabo¬
rate liturgical directions. Whether historical or eschatological,
this is definitely a holy war. If it is a war on the plane of history,
it is undoubtedly idealized, though perhaps no more so than the
directions for warfare in Deuteronomy 20 or the narrative in such
a chapter as II Chronicles 20, which the War scroll forcibly re¬
calls. The extremely formal procedure, however, with the enemy
doing nothing but flee or fall dead at the proper moment, seems
more like a ballet than a battle.
Even if there is no reference to a specific war, already in prog¬
ress or regarded as imminent, the writer’s conception of military
procedures might reflect the practices of his own time, if he was
acquainted with them. Thus F^vrier sees in this document evi-
208 The Dead Sea Scrolls
dence that the Jews were acquainted with the art of warfare, and
that their fighting was not a matter of irregular guerrilla operations
but was directed by officers trained in Hellenistic military tactics.
The army was drawn up in several parallel lines, one behind an¬
other, and these were divided into separate groups so that the
mobile forces might move freely back and forth between them.
This disposition of troops, F6vrier says, was customary in the Hel¬
lenistic armies of the second century b.c.
Whether the same evidence will bear a different interpretation
remains to be seen. It is reliably reported, as the journalists say,
that an intensive study of the War scroll from this point of view has
led Yigael Yadin to date the composition in the early Roman pe¬
riod. Until his work is published, however, I can say nothing more
definite about his conclusions or his arguments. Meanwhile it is
best to suspend judgment. No specific historical allusion to any
recognizable event, in any case, appears in this document.
Historical allusions have been detected or imagined in the
Thanksgiving Psalms. A passage that has been especially fruitful
in this regard is a section of one of the psalms which speaks of
"the torrents of Belial" as an overflowing, continuing stream of fire
that covers the earth and even inundates the infernal regions. Katz
sees in these "torrents of Belial” a reference to the waterworks con¬
structed in the first century a.d. under Pontius Pilate to bring water
to Jerusalem. Del Medico feels that the passage alludes to the
eruption of Vesuvius in 79 a.d., which was regarded in Palestine as
a warning of the coming day of the Lord. These examples may
suffice to show that the historical allusions in the Thanksgiving
Psalms, if there are any such, are of no use for dating the document.
References to recognizable events are not to be expected in a
document like the Manual of Discipline. From the lack of a mili¬
tant note, however, and the assumption that the wicked are in
power, Rabinowitz infers that the Manual was written in the late
pre-Maccabean or early Maccabean period, between 175 and 167
b.c. Whatever force this argument may have depends on its rela¬
tion to the development of ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which
we must now consider.
X
Ideas , Vocabulary , and
Literary Relations
truijiJTJTJTnjTrmjTj^^
Together with references to persons and events, the religious ideas
and practices presented in an ancient document afford some points
of attachment for estimating the period in which it was written.
We shall attempt later to form a comprehensive picture of the
religious ideas and practices of the Qumran community. In con¬
sidering some of them here, we are for the present looking only for
any indications of date that can be found in them.
A word of caution may not be out of place at this point. It is not
to be assumed that a belief or custom necessarily originated at the
time when it is first attested in our literary sources. Newly dis¬
covered material may at any time refute such assumptions. In
other words, the appearance of an idea, institution, or practice is
not by itself conclusive proof of the date when a document was
written. Along with all the other evidence, however, the stage of
religious development reflected by our manuscripts is one of the
things that must be taken into account
The evidence of ideas and practices is often too general to
afford a specific point of attachment. It is said, for example, that
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document evince a high
regard for the sabbath, and many of the Maccabees had the same
feeling. Obviously, while such a point may have some significance
as part of a general picture, strict observance of the sabbath is
309
210 The Dead Sea Scrolls
not distinctively characteristic of any one period. The devotion of
the Qumran community to the sons of Zadok as constituting the
true priesthood is another case in point. Together with other points
of contact, it may show a general affinity with this or that group
in a particular period, but it cannot be taken as evidence of any
date, whether late or early. An origin in the time of early Chris¬
tianity has been inferred from what is taken to be a Gnostic or
quasi-Gnostic polemic against the doctrine of the incarnation of
Christ, but the reference is by no means so clear or so certain as to
be of any evidential value.
From the idea of the destruction of the world by fire, which
appears in one of the Thanksgiving Psalms, Verm&s formerly in¬
ferred that the psalms were written between 79 and 90 a.d.,
because other sources seemed to indicate that this idea became
known in Judaism at about that time but was soon abandoned.
The burning of the temple in 70 a.d. and the eruption of Vesuvius
in 79, he thought, might have had some part in promoting it. The
archeological evidence has since shown that such a late date is
impossible, as Verm&s himself recognizes. Here again it is clear
that arguments of this sort may support other and more concrete
evidence to the same effect, but they cannot outweigh contrary
evidence of a more specific character. The idea of a destruction of
the world by fire may have been known in the Qumran community
long before it became familiar in other Jewish circles, and it may
have been widely known in Judaism at large before the first
century a.d.
Other beliefs concerning the end of the world and the coming
of the Messiah have been cited as evidence of a relatively late
date. Ideas concerning the coming of the Messiah based on
Habakkuk 2:3 are mentioned in the Talmud, and this fact has
been taken to indicate that the Dead Sea Scrolls originated in the
Talmudic period. The Habakkuk Commentary, however, while
obviously expecting the end of the world very soon, offers no cal¬
culations concerning the coming of the Messiah such as are found
in rabbinic literature. Contacts with medieval Messianic specula¬
tion have been cited as evidence of a still later date for the Dead
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 211
Sea Scrolls; similar ideas, however, have been found also in earlier
writings.
The use made of the Old Testament in the non-biblical scrolls
and the way it is interpreted are important for the history of both
Judaism and Christianity. Their significance as indicating the time
when these documents were written, however, is questionable.
Sonne has argued that the use of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls
reflects the type of interpretation practiced by the second-century
Jewish exegetes called the Doreshe Reshumot (“seekers of
marks”). He even sees in the scrolls a polemic against the use of
the Old Testament by Christians. W. D. Davies points out, how¬
ever, that the book of Habakkuk, which evidently meant much to
the Qumran community, was not much used by the early Chris¬
tians. He adds that very little is actually known of the biblical
interpretations of the Doreshe Reshumot, while the type of in¬
terpretation found in the Dead Sea Scrolls has many parallels in
other Jewish sources.
The method of interpreting Scripture is connected with the
question of whether the Habakkuk Commentary should properly
be called a commentary or a “midrashToo much has been made
of this question, it seems to me, but it must be mentioned because
it has been linked up with the dating of this document. A midrash
may be defined as a homiletical expansion of a biblical book, or
part of a book, for the purpose of edification. From the time of
our first acquaintance with the Habakkuk scroll, I called it a com¬
mentary because of its form. As the portions already quoted show,
it quotes the biblical text bit by bit, giving after each quotation an
explanation of what the author believes to be its meaning. A
midrash does not follow quite this method; it follows the order of
the biblical text as a commentary does, but its method of exposi¬
tion is more like that of a popular expository lecture, or even the
telling of a Bible story by a Sunday-school teacher. It frequently
cites the opinions of various authorities and discusses problems of
exegesis, but the manner of presentation is not that of a formal
commentary.
Some scholars, however, have questioned the legitimacy of call-
212
The Dead Sea Scrolls
ing our document a commentary, not because of its form but
because of the manner in which die text is applied to the writer s
own time. The interpretation of the Bible is of course not like
what one finds in a scholarly commentary of our day. It would
be all too easy, however, to cite commentaries published even
now that are quite uninhibited by sound philological and historical
principles from applying prophecy to our own times, though in
form and procedure they are commentaries and are so called.
As it happens, the term -'commentary" has been preferred by
some of the scholars who have maintained a late date for the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Driver, for example, says that the Habakkuk scroll
is "a true commentary ... of a type similar in form if not in
substance to those of the Middle Ages " Zeitlin even suggests that
the designation of the scroll as a midrash instead of a commentary j
was inspired by the desire to ascribe it to the Hasmonean period.
Insisting that it is a commentary, he infers that therefore it can¬
not be ancient, “since the Jews did not write commentaries on the
Bible during the Second Commonwealth. ... As long as He¬
brew was a living tongue, there was no need for a translation or a
commentary." This is not a necessary assumption. We now have
the Bible in English, and English is a living language, but we
still need commentaries. But the Habakkuk Commentary was in¬
tended not to explain a text that was otherwise unintelligible, 1
but to propound a particular sectarian interpretation. Com¬
mentaries have often been written, and are still sometimes written,
for that purpose.
The appearance of such a commentary from a time before the
destruction of the temple was unquestionably surprising. To rule
out the antiquity of the document, however, on the ground that
compositions of the sort were not written in ancient times is any¬
thing but scientific procedure. How, one may ask, is our knowl- j
edge of the history of biblical interpretation to be improved if we
refuse to recognize new evidence?
An arrangement of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the successive
strata of the Damascus Document in chronological order on the
i
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 213
basis of the development of ideas has been proposed by Isaac
Rabinowitz. Such a development seems to him to be evident in
the ideas concerning two subjects, the expected end of the world
and the persecution endured by the group. As Gottstein pre¬
supposes a normal order of sociological development in the his¬
tory of a group, so Rabinowitz assumes a normal succession of
four stages in the evolution of ideas concerning the end of the
world: (1) the end is believed to be in preparation; (2) it is
believed to be at hand and actually taking place; (3) it is felt to
have been delayed, and explanations of the delay are sought; and
(4) the conclusion that the expectation was mistaken is accepted,
and a new attempt is made to calculate the time of the end.
In the Manual of Discipline, Rabinowitz finds that the end is
still thought of as in the future; in the earliest stratum of the
Damascus Document, and in a “fragment of an unknown docu¬
ment” discovered and published by de Vaux, he finds the belief
that the end of the world is at hand; in one of the Thanksgiving
Psalms and in The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Dark¬
ness the consummation seems to be “in progress and about to reach
a great climax”; in another of the Thanksgiving Psalms, in the
Habakkuk Commentary, and in the rest of the Damascus Docu¬
ment the delay of the climax seems to be felt as a problem.
A similar process is observed with regard to the persecution of
the group. In the Manual of Discipline no severe persecution has
yet emerged; in the earliest stratum of the Damascus Document
and in two of the Thanksgiving Psalms persecution has broken
out, but the group is resisting it with confidence; in The War of
the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness and in two other
Thanksgiving Psalms the persecution has spent its force, and the
saints can “blueprint” the final victory.
On the basis of these developments Rabinowitz constructs the
following “sequence table” of the composition of the documents:
(1) the Manual of Discipline; (2) de Vaux’s fragments, the earliest
stratum of the Damascus Document, and the first two Thanks¬
giving Psalms; (3) the War scroll and two of the Thanksgiving
xi 4 The Dead Sea Scrolls
directly. He may have been writing from dictation or even from
memory. In any case, he was unquestionably rather careless and
often used a kind of rough-and-ready phonetic spelling of his own.
There is one rather important indication, however, that in some
respects he was following a very ancient tradition. His spelling of
proper names and titles, as Dewey Beegle has shown, is some¬
times more in accord with their original meaning than the spelling
of the Masoretes. For example, the Assyrian title that is spelled
Tartan in the Masoretic text appears in the scroll as Turtan. The
original Assyrian form is turtannu. The name given by the
Masoretes as Sharexer is Sharuxer in the scroll, corresponding again
more closely to the Assyrian spelling. The Masoretic text spells
Rabshakeh as one word; this was originally an Assyrian title con¬
sisting of two words, and in the St Mark's manuscript there is
a space between them —Rob Shakeh. The preservation of forms
closer to the original Assyrian names or titles does not necessarily
prove that this manuscript is very ancient, but it indicates depend¬
ence at these points on a tradition older than the Masoretic text.
From all this it can be seen that for the purpose of dating the
St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll its distinctive orthography gives little help.
It neither confirms nor refutes the conclusions of archeology and
paleography. At most we may say that it is not inconsistent with
those conclusions.
But the language of the scroll has other distinctive features.
There are peculiarities not only of spelling but also of grammatical
forms in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and especially in the St. Mark’s
Isaiah scroll. Since many of the readers for whom the present book
is intended cannot be expected to know Hebrew, only a general
indication of a few of these grammatical peculiarities can be
given here. For example, in some places where the Masoretic text
has unaccented short vowels, there are vowel letters in the scroll
suggesting that in the dialect of its scribe these vowels were long
and presumably accented. Certain pronouns and suffixes that end
with consonants in the Masoretic text have an additional long a
at the end in the manuscript. This is rather striking, because such
a final a is believed to have been used in the earliest form of
The Evidence of Text and Language 115
the language; it then dropped out of use in Hebrew, but it reap¬
pear! in medieval compositions, probably under the influence of
classical Arabic. Occasionally it appears in the Masoretic text
of the Old Testament, where it can be explained either as an
archaic survival or as a medieval innovation. Apparently the
Qumran community still used the old pronunciation. It is worth
noting in this connection that the Samaritan dialect still pre¬
serves these final vowels.
Other grammatical features of the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll sug¬
gest Aramaic influence. Some have supposed, therefore, that the
manuscript must have been written after Aramaic had become
the language of Jewish scholars. Others have argued, however,
that these forms support an early date for the manuscript, because
they do not appear in the transcription of the Hebrew text in
Greek letters given by Origen in his Hexapla. Aside from affinities
with the Aramaic language in general, points of contact with the
Pales t i n ian Christian dialect of Aramaic have been noted.
To make a long story short, it seems that while the spelling of
this scroll is relatively late, the grammatical forms indicated by that
spelling are older than those preserved in the Masoretic text. The
syntax as well as the forms of the words sometimes differs from
that of the Masoretes, but these differences cannot be described
without using technical language. As in the spelling and the
forms of words, there is no consistency in the peculiarities of
syntax. The scribe who wrote the manuscript followed his copy
on the whole, but now and then he slipped into forms of speech
more familiar to him in his own dialect. All these facts are impor¬
tant for the historical grammar of the Hebrew language, but in
the present state of our knowledge they afford no clear evidence
as to the age of the scroll. In fact, the linguistic peculiarities need
not have originated in this particular manuscript; many of them
may conceivably have crept into the text in earlier copies.
These matters of spelling and grammar must be investigated in
all the biblical texts found in the caves, with the Masoretic text
as a basis of comparison. For the non-biblical texts we have no
other manuscripts to serve this purpose. It is impossible to tell
216 The Dead Sea Scrolls
especially anointed for war, according to a rabbinic interpreta¬
tion of Deuteronomy 20:3. Sukenik’s argument must be taken into
account, however, by those who date the War scroll later than the
Hasmonean period.
Many other terms in the Dead Sea Scrolls play a part in argu¬
ments against a pre-Christian date. The use of the word "Israel”
instead of "Jerusalem” is said by Zeitlin to be "contrary to the
terminology of all Second Commonwealth literature known to us.”
Bimbaum considers this merely a matter of style. The usage of the
scrolls in this particular may, however, be a result of the belief
that the covenanters' community was the true Israel. The term
Israel is used in much the same way in the New Testament for
the Christian church.
The use of the Hebrew noun El, meaning God, instead of the
divine name YHWH or the word Adonai (Lord), is adduced by
Zeitlin as another indication of medieval date. The fact that the
word God is frequently used in the apocryphal literature is dis¬
missed as insignificant. The question, Zeitlin says, is not why El is
used, but why the divine name is not used. Weis stresses the fact
that this use of the word El is foreign to rabbinic literature; it
would be natural, he says, for Jews living in Arab countries and
accustomed to the designation of God as Allah in Arabic. In reply
to these arguments Teicher adduces three points: (1) the practice J
of the Qumran community need not have been in accordance
with common Jewish usage; (2) the word El is used in very old
Jewish prayers; (3) it is actually used "only very sporadically”
in medieval Jewish literature. With regard to this and other
terms Zeitlin claims to be distinctly medieval, it is sufficient to
repeat that the Dead Sea Scrolls come from a different group and
represent a quite different literary type from the rabbinic sources.
Weis offers an ingenious explanation of the term “the simple ^
ones of Judah” in the Habakkuk Commentary. He connects the
word translated "simple” with an Arabic word meaning “youth”
or "child,” and so takes the expression to mean “children of Judah.”
He cites rabbinic sources that associate the Hebrew and Arabic
words in question. This suggests an acquaintance with Arabic on
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 217
the part of the rabbis at a surprisingly early time, for Weis says
that even Rabbi Akiba, in the second century a.d., used the same
play on words. It is not impossible, of course, that Jews of this
period knew something of the Arabic language; but if so it is
not inconceivable that the usage in question was known to the
Qumran community somewhat earlier. Teicher observes that the
same Hebrew word is used in a favorable sense in Psalm 116:6,
where the Septuagint actually translates it ‘little children." There
is no need, however, to read the meaning "children'’ into the
Habakkuk Commentary. The meaning “simple ones’’ is thoroughly
appropriate.
Comments on the biblical text are introduced regularly in the
Habakkuk Commentary and once in the Damascus Document by
the word pishro, “its meaning." Zeitlin attributes this expression
to the medieval Karaites, and Weis again gives an elaborate and
impressive argument to show that it was a result of the Arabic
influence. The usage of the Damascus Document and the
Habakkuk Commentary is in fact convincingly shown to be closer
to that of medieval writings than to anything hitherto known from
earlier periods. Since the origin of these documents before or at
the latest very early in the Christian era has now been demon¬
strated, one can only conclude that the usage in question was
either revived in a later period or preserved in a line of tradition
different from that of the rabbinic literature.
The difference of usage may be taken to indicate that the
commentary and the Damascus Document were not later but
earlier than the rabbinic sources. Reversing the argument of Weis,
Teicher suggests that later Arabic writers may have been in¬
fluenced by the usage of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is not necessary
to go that far, but some relationship between the community of
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the medieval Karaites is indubitable.
What the relation was we must consider in another chapter. The
Karaites were also familiar with the Arabic language and the
terminology of Arab writers. Some kind of three-cornered re¬
lationship, of which the term pishro is only one example, may be
involved here. All that needs to be said for the purpose now in
218 The Dead Sea Scrolls
hand is that the relationship does not and in fact cannot involve
a medieval origin of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Since our only means of telling when ideas arose is their ex¬
pression in literature, the attempt to place our documents in the
history of ideas and terminology is connected with the problem of
literary relationships. Similarity in ideas and language may in¬
dicate merely that two documents belong to approximately the
same period; it may, however, show that one of them has been
influenced by the other and is therefore later. The study of literary
relationships seeks to detect instances of such influence, especially
the quotation of one writing by another.
Unless the source of the quotation is named, it is often very
difficult to tell which document is dependent upon the other, or
whether both are dependent upon a common source. A familiar
example is the famous peace prophecy of Isaiah 2:2-4 » n d Micah
4:1-4. Does Isaiah quote Micah here, does Micah quote Isaiah,
or do both quote an earlier book that has been lost?
Even a clear literary relationship is not usually sufficient by
itself to establish the priority of one document or the other. It can
only show that there is some connection between them, leaving
the chronological relationship to be determined on other grounds.
Only occasionally is there any clear indication of the relationship
in time.
No other writing known to us exhibits such close affinities with
the Dead Sea Scrolls as those found in the Damascus Document,
but there a ru some indications of connection in ideas, if not direct
literary dependence, in other books. The apocryphal literature of
the period between the Old and New Testaments naturally calls
for examination from this point of view. Hempel has remarked
that the Thanksgiving Psalms appear to be later than the latest
psalms and wisdom literature of the Old Testament, but that no
dependence on the apocryphal book of Sirach is apparent. Such a
lack of clear literary dependence is of course no indication of
date. Even a later work of the same type of literature would not
necessarily show dependence on Sirach, and there is actually
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 219
nothing in the Dead Sea Scrolls that belongs to the category of
wisdom literature.
The relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the book
of Sirach has proved to be an intriguing problem. Kahle has
suggested that both the manuscripts of the Damascus Document
and the fragments of the Hebrew text of Sirach found in the Old
Cairo genizah were copies of older scrolls that had been brought
from one of the caves in the Wady Qumran at about 800 a.d.,
at the time of the discovery related by Timotheus (see page 41).
Following out the suggestion, Dupont-Sommer adds that per¬
haps the covenanters of Qumran inherited the book of Sirach
from an earlier group and added something to It. J. Trinquet
notes a possible instance of such addition. The Hebrew text of
Sirach found in the Cairo genizah inserts a psalm between Chap¬
ters 50 and 51 of the Greek text. It includes the line, “Praise him
who chose the sons of Zadok to be priests.” There is no other
reference to the sons of Zadok in the book. The whole psalm may
have been inserted, Trinquet suggests, by the members of a sect;
or, if it was a part of the original text, it may have been suppressed
by the Greek translator because the Zadokite priests had betrayed
Judaism in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes and had been re¬
placed by the Hasmoneans.
Authentic or not, the presence of the psalm in the Hebrew
text shows that the book of Sirach had been at some time in the
hands of people who glorified the sons of Zadok, and these,
Trinquet believes, were the covenanters who produced the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document. He suggests that the
Hebrew fragments of Sirach, the Habakkuk Commentary, the
Damascus Document, and the original nucleus of the Manual of
Discipline all come from the first half of the third century b.c.
and express the reaction of a priestly group, the sons of Zadok,
against the wrongs inflicted upon Onias III by Jason and Mene-
laus. The expression "sons of Zadok” as used by the sect is there¬
fore "a protestation of fidelity to the authentic priestly tradition.”
Here Trinquet obviously combines considerations of related
220 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ideas with the interpretation of historical allusions. He believes that
the Habakkuk Commentary reflects the complex history of the pre-
Maccabean period, and the Kittim are the Seleucids. The one
reference to the sons of Zadok, he has to admit, establishes only
a very fragile connection between Sirach and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
He explains the lack of any stronger connection by supposing
that Sirach was merely adopted by the group without modification,
while the documents reflecting their own history and distinctive
tenets were produced later within the community.
The net result of the whole inquiry is that there is still no clear
connection between our documents and the book of Sirach. Such
a relationship as Dupont-Sommer and Trinquct postulate is not
improbable, but it has not been demonstrated. What were at first
thought to be fragments of the Hebrew text of Sirach were found
in one of the Qumran caves; on closer examination they turned out
to be Hebrew and Aramaic fragments of the book of Tobit, but
other fragments of Sirach are now said to have been identified.
None of the documents with which we are concerned is an
apocalyptic work in any strict sense, but there is a strong interest in
the ‘last days," which shows a spiritual connection with the
apocalyptic literature and encourages a search for indications of
literary relationship. Delcor argues that there is definite affinity of
vocabulary and thought between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
book of Enoch, the longest and most elaborate of all the apocalyp¬
tic works. Not all the items he mentions to support this contention
are convincing. Most of them, if not all, demonstrate only a general
similarity of spiritual atmosphere. Such terms as "the elect” and
“mystery” are used much too widely in Jewish literature to afford
any indication of a literary relationship.
One book among those commonly known as the "pseudepi-
grapha” is mentioned by name in the Damascus Document, and a
fragment of it in Hebrew was found when the first Qumran cave
was excavated. This is the Book of Jubilees, sometimes called
the "Little Genesis." It is believed by most scholars to have been
written in the second century b.c. during the Hasmonean period,
though a few date it one or two centuries earlier. Many simi-
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 221
larities in language and ideas between the book of Jubilees and
the Manual of Discipline have been noted, and this is not sur¬
prising. The book of Jubilees was certainly known to the com¬
munity, as the presence of a fragment of it in one of the caves
conclusively demonstrates. The explicit mention of the book by
name in the Damascus Document proves that the latter is of
later origin than Jubilees; otherwise the contacts between Jubilees
and the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to indicate that both it and they
come from the same general period and situation, without any
clear dependence one way or the other.
Both Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs con¬
tain passages commonly interpreted as references to a Messiah
from the tribe of Levi These have often been regarded as Chris¬
tian additions to an early Jewish document; Dupont-Sommer,
however, suggests that the Messiah referred to by the Testaments
of the Twelve Patriarchs is the teacher of righteousness of the
Habakkuk Commentary and the Damascus Document Compar¬
ing the Testament and Jubilees with these documents, he finds
evidence that belief in a suffering and redeeming Messiah was
known in Judaism in the first century b.c., and in the light of that
conclusion he calls for a re-examination of many passages in the
Old Testament. C. C. Torrey has argued for many years that the
texts cited by Dupont-Sommer, with other passages in the Old
Testament, demonstrate the idea of a suffering Messiah in pre-
Christian Judaism.
Whatever may be the nature of the relationship between the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,
there is no clear indication of direct literary dependence. As
Reicke has said, Jubilees and the Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs themselves are not literary units composed at one time,
but results of a long literary process; and agreements between
contemporary or nearly contemporary writings may prove nothing
more than a common milieu.
Contacts have been noted between the Habakkuk Commentary
and the Psalms of Solomon, a collection of poems written, in part
at least, not long after 63 b.c. None of them, it must be said, is
Ml The Dead Sea Scrolls
close enough to indicate a direct literary relationship. Much of
the similarity lies in the use of a common terminology, which is
largely biblical, for very widespread ideas. The situation in the
two cases, however, is similar if not the same, and in their at¬
titudes and the points of view the Psalms of Solomon and the
Dead Sea Scrolls have much in common. Delcor stresses the con¬
trast between the saints and sinners, the condemnation of the
priests’ love of riches, the sympathy expressed for the poor, the
condemnation of the rapacity of the priests, and the references to
a flight into the desert to escape persecution. He concludes that
the Psalms of Solomon and the Dead Sea Scrolls all come from the
same general milieu, but not from the same period, the scrolls
being somewhat earlier. Schoeps feels that the parallels between
the Habakkuk Commentary and the Psalms of Solomon show that
both came from groups who denied the right of the Hasmoneans to
the high priesthood and were deeply impressed by the judgment
visited upon the last Hasmonean king by the Romans.
To summarize our discussion of the dates of composition of the
Dead Sea Scrolls, we may say that the latest possible date for any
of them is the time when the manuscripts found in the caves were
made; this was some time before the manuscripts were left in
the cave, which has now been archeologically established as the
time of the first Jewish revolt against Rome (66-70 a.d.). The
earliest possible date for the composition of any of the books can¬
not be fixed. The excavation of Khirbet Qumran reveals an occupa¬
tion beginning in the Hasmonean period, but some of the manu¬
scripts may have been made before the community settled there.
The paleography of the scrolls and fragments shows that some are
much older than others. It is quite possible that the oldest manu¬
scripts were already in existence when the books contained in
some of the later manuscripts were first composed. It would be
equally possible, of course, theoretically, that the latest manu¬
scripts were only new copies of books even older than those con¬
tained in the oldest manuscripts.
With the biblical manuscripts all this is clear enough. In the
case of the book of Daniel the manuscripts represented by the
Ideas, Vocabulary, and Literary Relations 223
fragments in the caves may have been made very soon after the
original compositon of the book, but such books as Isaiah and
Leviticus were unquestionably older by centuries than the earliest
date that can reasonably be assigned to any of the scrolls and
fragments. The chief problem is that of the non-biblical writings.
Here we are dependent upon the internal evidence of language,
historical allusions, ideas, terminology, and literary relations.
Some of the biblical fragments have been thought by some
scholars to be the remains of manuscripts from the fourth or fifth
century b.c., but no scholar would date any of the non-biblical
documents earlier than the late pre-Maccabean period. Several
would place some of the books at that time, while others argue
for later dates. There is general agreement that the Manual of
Discipline is one of the earliest of the writings. It has been thought
by a number of scholars that The War of the Sons of Light with
the Sons of Darkness also was early, but that is not at all certain.
While the Habakkuk Commentary is assigned by some to the pre-
Maccabean period, there is a fairly clear tendency to move it down
to the end of the Hasmonean or the beginning of the Roman
period, and the arguments for this seem to me to be convincing.
Whether the date should be set before or after 63 b.c. is less clear.
The Thanksgiving Psalms, like the Psalms of the Old Testament,
cannot be assigned to specific times. Some have suggested that
they were written by the teacher of righteousness himself, but
the evidence for this is not impressive. More probably they were
composed at different times throughout the period. In any case,
it now seems to be fairly well established that the non-biblical
writings in the scrolls and fragments from the Wady Qumran
were all composed within a period of about 135 years, from the
accession of Antiochus Epiphanes in 175 b.c., or shortly before
that, down to about 40 b.c.
PART FOUR
THE COMMUNITY OF QUMRAN
XI
Origin, History, and Organization
tjrnjTTirijiJTJxrLnjTJTjT^
Who were these peoples who produced the Dead Sea Scrolls?
They were evidently a sectarian group, off to one side from the
main current of official Judaism represented by the temple and its
priesthood. This was evident at once when we first examined
Archbishop Samuel's scrolls at Jerusalem. For a while we spoke
of the Manual of Discipline in particular as “the sectarian docu¬
ment.” This was of course only a tentative designation, used for
lack of one that seemed better. I have explained how the term
“Manual of Discipline” came to my mind as I read the scroll
Meanwhile the term “sectarian document” was criticized on the
obvious ground that all the scrolls were sectarian documents.
But should the term “sect” and “sectarian” be used at all for these
texts? Before the destruction of the temple no particular type of
Judaism was “standard” or “orthodox” in such a sense that any
other tendency could be considered heretical. The words “sectar¬
ian” and “heretical,” however, are not synonymous. The com¬
munity of Qumran was an organized group, with definite beliefs
and strict rules, and with an attitude of condemnation toward
the practices of the official priestly leaders of Judaism at the time. If
the word “sect” is not appropriate for such a group, it is hard to
think of a better term. At any rate, that is all that we have in mind
when we speak of the community as a sect and its writings as
sectarian.
What the sect was, what name should be used for it, and what
228 The Dead Sea Scrolls
was its relation to any of the other groups known to us, we can¬
not say until we have found what the manuscripts tell us about its
origin, history, and characteristic beliefs and practices. We shall
therefore consider these before we try to identify and name the
sec*. Meanwhile we must continue to use some vague, noncom¬
mittal designation. That is better than putting a definite label
upon the group prematurely, and then letting this influence our
interpretation of the data. For convenience we may continue to
use such terms as “Judean covenanters,” “Qumran covenanters,"
or "the Qumran sect."
Concerning the origin of the community, including the life¬
time and possible identity of its founder, we have already en¬
countered many theories in our attempt to fix the dates of the
documents. We have noted the suggestion that some of the
Thanksgiving Psalms may have been written by the teacher of
righteousness, whether he was the founder of the group or a
later reformer. If this could be proved, and if we could establish
the date when these psalms were composed, we should know when
the teacher of righteousness lived. Unfortunately neither of these
conditions can be realized. We have found that no attempt to
identify either the wicked priest or the teacher of righteousness
with any known historical person is wholly convincing. Several
possibilities must be recognized, including even the possibility
that more t h an one wicked priest and more than one teacher of
righteousness are involved. It remains possible also that the
teacher of righteousness was an individual unknown to history.
Assuming that there was only one teacher of righteousness, we
cannot be sure that he was the founder of the movement. This
depends partly on the relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Damascus Document. The teacher of the community (or
teacher of unity) mentioned in the Damascus Document may or
may not be the same as the teacher of righteousness who appears
in the Habakkuk Commentary as the recipient of revelation. It has
been suggested that the teacher of righteousness reformed and
reorganized a movement previously founded by the teacher of
the community.
Origin, History, and Organization 229
One thing can be considered certain: if the teacher of righteous¬
ness and the wicked priest were individuals, they were con¬
temporaries. Even if there were several wicked priests and several
teachers of righteousness, one of the former persecuted one of the
latter. The career of the teacher of righteousness, however, may
have begun somewhat before or after the accession of the wicked
priest. A convincing identification of the wicked priest would
therefore give us only a general indication of the time when the
teacher of righteousness appeared, and it would still be uncertain
whether the group was organized by him.
The net result of all the searching for an anchorage in history
for the Damascus Document and the Dead Sea Scrolls is disap¬
pointing. With many possibilities in view, no certainty has yet been
attained. The group was obviously well organized by the time the
Manual of Discipline was written; indeed, the rules of the com¬
munity as compiled in that document show already a considerable
development of tradition. This, more plainly than any of the
historical allusions in the other texts, points to an origin of the
group well back in the Hasmonean period, hardly later than the
time of Alexander Janneus. This agrees with the results of the ex¬
cavation of Khirbet Qumran.
Subsequent developments, however, including perhaps the
career of the teacher of righteousness and his relation to the
teacher of unity, the identity of the wicked priest (or priests), and
all the stages of organization reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
the Damascus Document, are still very obscure. Rabinowitz,
assuming that Jews from the Dispersion returned to Palestine dur¬
ing the time of the Maccabees, proposes a reconstruction of the
whole history of the covenanters’ community in connection with the
terms “council of the community of Israel” in the Damascus Docu¬
ment, “council of the community” in the Manual of Discipline and
the Habakkuk Commentary, and “congregation of the Jews” on
early Maccabean coins. In the Manual of Discipline, he suggests,
the community is in the first place the new society constituted by
reuniting Israel, including the returned exiles, in Palestine.
Mattathias, the inaugurator of the Maccabean revolt, and his son
230 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Judas, its first leader, were accepted as “guides of righteousness
by the Hasidim of the Maccabean period, and the “camps” of the
Damascus Document represent the effort of Judas Maccabeus to
gather together the Jews who had returned from the Dispersion.
After the death of Judas the reconstituted Jewish community
under Jonathan (160-142 b.c.) was called the “congregation of
Isr ael," and it is so named on his coins. Under Simon (342-134
b.c.) it was called the “congregation of the Jews,” and each local
unit was known as a “congregation of the city." Later the com¬
munity" reappeared among the Essenes, and the “congregation of
the city" became a Pharisaic institution. This elaborate recon¬
struction is suggestive as a working hypothesis, but it is open
to question at many points.
On these matters wisdom would seem to dictate a suspension of
judgment until all the texts have been published and can be ex¬
amined and compared. Even then it may never be possible to con¬
nect the beg innin gs of the group with any specific individuals or
events known to us from other sources. In the meantime we can
examine the forms of organization and the beliefs reflected in
these documents. This will give us a picture of the group that
will enable us to compare it with the parties and sects of Judaism
already known to us. In that way it may be possible to determine
which, if any, of these groups can be identified with the Qumran
covenanters.
The form of the organization and its rules are found in the
Damascus Document and the Manual of Discipline. We have seen
that these two documents have a great deal in common, though
there are sufficient differences to show that they do not come from
exactly the same group. They may represent different branches of
the same movement or different stages in its history, if not both.
In spite of the statement of the Manual of Discipline that the sons
of Aaron are to govern the community according the the first
ordinances until the coming of a prophet and the Messiahs of
Aaron and Israel, there were certainly changes and developments
in the sect; in fact, this statement itself may have originated as a
Origin , History, and Organization * 3 *
protest against innovations. A thorough discussion would have to
treat the two documents, and the different strata within each one,
separately. For our present purpose, however, we may be content
to discuss them together, merely noting occasional differences as
we encounter them.
While the community had its own separate organization and
held itself strongly apart from the Jewish nation as a whole, it did
not regard itself as merely one group within Judaism. The texts
frequently read as though they were directed to the whole people
of Israel, though this may only reflect a tendency, not unknown
in other religious bodies, to regard all those outside of the group
as heretics and apostates. The sect considered itself, as sects
usually do, the only true people of God.
The community includes "Aaron and Israel," meaning probably
the priesthood and the laity. The Manual of Discipline mentions
priests, Levites, and "all the people," to whom the Damascus Docu¬
ment adds the proselytes. In another passage the place of the
Levites is taken by the elders. The organization seems to be
divided also into smaller groups, each consisting of not less than
ten men, like the mtnyan of the orthodox synagogue. Both the
Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document speak also of
thousands, hundreds, and fifties, as well as tens. Unless the group
was, for some time at least, very large, these figures can hardly
be anything more than a rather wistful echo of scriptural lan¬
guage. It has been estimated that the total population of the
community in the Wady Qumran numbered not much more than
two hundred.
Although the manuscripts, with the exception of the Damascus
Document, were all found within a limited area near the Dead
Sea there are some indications that the group was not limited
to a single locality. The expression “all their dwellings'’ in the
Manual of Discipline does not necessarily imply widely separated
settlements, but the Damascus Document clearly implies the
existence of many different local groups. Conceivably this might
be merely an expression of wishful thinking, but the detailed
232 The Dead Sea Scrolls
regulations and the fact that there are indications of development
in the rules themselves point to the actual existence of a number
of local settlements.
At the heed of each small group stands a priest. His age and
other qualifications are stated in the Damascus Document. The
decision of all matters in the administration of the community
belongs to the sons of Aaron. The priests, the sons of Zadok, are the
guardians of the covenant. A group of twelve laymen and three
priests is mentioned in connection with the council of the com¬
munity. Whether this is meant to specify a separate body or the
quorum for a meeting of the council is not clear. The stated qualifi¬
cation of the fifteen members, or perhaps of the three priests only,
is perfection "in all that is revealed of the whole law, through
* practicing truth and righteousness and justice and loving devotion,
and walking humbly each with his neighbor.” The purpose for
which the group exists is "to maintain faithfulness in the land” and
"to expiate enmity.” The exposition of the law and exemplary
conduct are thus the main responsibilities of the council of fifteen.
Priests play a prominent part in the life of the community. They
pronounce the blessing at the common meals and in the ceremony
of entering the covenant. In the War scroll the chief priest plays a
leading role in the war against the sons of darkness.
Both the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document
mention an official who is designated by a term rather hard to
translate satisfactorily. It may be rendered "examiner” or "in¬
vestigator,” but the functions prescribed for this official are fairly
well indicated by the term “superintendent.” Apparently the man
known by this title is the same one who is called the "inspector
in the same context. The Damascus Document speaks of a super¬
intendent of the camp and also a superintendent of all the camps.
According to the Manual of Discipline, judicial decisions are
reached by the assembled members of the group; at least there is
no reference to judges. In the Damascus Document, however,
there is a group of judges selected from the congregation, four
from “Levi and Aaron” and six from “Israel.” They must be be-
Origin, History, and Organization *33
tween fifty-five and sixty years old, and must have a perfect knowl-
"womet'are not mentioned in the portions of the Manual of
Discipline bought by Archbishop Samuel. The first line of the first
column originally contained a word of which only the last three
letters are now left. Brownlee conjectures that this was the Hebrew
word for women; it might equally well, however, have been a word
meaning men, or any one of a number of other words. In the last
column there is an expression which at first sight seems to mean
“holy daughters,” and a few scholars have actually supposed
this to be the meaning. There is no place for these devout>f di “
in the context, however, and the words should^undoubtedly be
read as “building of holiness” or “holy building.”
Brownlee sees a reference to marriage in the statement that the
“sons of truth” are “to bear seed with all everlasting blessing, but
few are likely to accept that interpretation. The Damascus Docu¬
ment, on the other hand, clearly contemplates a group of married
men with families, and the additional columns from the Manual
of Discipline or a closely related document, which were »oq™»d
by the Palestine Museum, mention explicitly women and children.
Skeletons of women were found in some of the graves m the
cemetery of Qumran. Probably the sect included both communities
of celibates and settlements of families. It is possible also that a
few women of eminent saintliness were buried in the cemetery of
the order even if no women were admitted as members.
Several passages to the Manual of Discipline indicate that the
sect practiced community of goods. At the same time it is said
that one who has inadvertently destroyed any of the property of
the order shall repay it in full. One naturally wonders how a
member who had turned over his private possessions to the order
would have anything left with which to pay for such damage. It
has been suggested that this requirement probably applied only
to postulants or novices, not to those who had attained full mem¬
bership to the community. The Damascus Document puts some
restrictions on the ownership of property but does not deny the
234 The Dead Sea Scrolls
right of private possession. Members of the group who work for
wages pay to the superintendent and the judges for community
purposes the wages of two days out of each month. This is one of
the most conspicuous differences between the Manual of Dis¬
cipline and the Damascus Document.
A strict oath of complete allegiance to the law is required of
every candidate for membership in the order, according to the
Manual of Discipline. Admission is not granted at once; there is a
period of probation in two stages of a year each. Only at the end
of this process, and after strict examinations at the end of each
stage of it, can the candidate be admitted to full membership. The
Damascus Document has similar rules, but the process seems to
have been less complicated.
Corresponding more or less to the stages of initiation, the com¬
munity is divided into different groups. The fully initiated mem¬
bers are called the rabbim. This word may mean “many." It is
frequently used in that sense in the Old Testament. The way it is
used in the Manual of Discipline seems to have some association
with Daniel 12:2-4, 10, where it probably reflects Isaiah 53:11.
Perhaps the choice of the word to designate the members of the
group was influenced by these passages in the Old Testament; if
so, however, it seems to have been given a different meaning from
the one it has there.
In the Habakkuk Commentary it is used in the interpretation of
Habakkuk 1:10, which speaks of kings and rulers. In this place, at
least, it must mean something like “great ones.” In Job 32:9 the
same word is a term of honor associated with “elders." In Aramaic
it means “masters” or “teachers," and this seems to me to be its
meaning as applied to the members of the sect in the Manual of
Discipline. One is reminded of the “masters” of the medieval
guilds. I have therefore adopted the word “masters” to translate
rabbim.
The “perfect” or fully initiated members of the Hellenistic
mystery cults come to mind also, and the Hebrew word for “per¬
fect” is often applied to the rabbim. These “masters” participate
in the direction of all the community’s affairs. They vote on the
Origin, History, and Organization 235
admission of new members and judge the cases of offenders against
the rules of the order. ,
Once admitted to full membership, the individual is assigned
to a regular rank or place. Attendance at the meetings of the group
is compulsory, and the procedure is strictly regulated. It is quite
clear that the group believes in the principle enunciated by the
Apostle Paul, that “all things should be done decently and in
order” (I Corinthians 14:40). The order of seating as well as ot
speaking in the assembly is prescribed, and each member is ex-
pected to present his views in turn. He is not allowed to speak out
of turn or to interrupt another member who is speaking.
Obedience to the rules of the community is strictly enforced.
Infringements are punished by various penalties, ranging from a
reduction of the food allowance to suspension for various periods,
or even expulsion from the order. In the Damascus Document
provision is made, under stated limitations, for the restoration of
repentant offenders. One who breaks the sabbath and repents is
to be watched for seven years, and then readmitted to the organiza¬
tion if his conduct has been consistently worthy. Turning over a
member to a pagan court for capital punishment is itself regarded
as a capital offense. The feeling here is evidently the same as was
expressed by Paul in I Corinthians 6:1-8.
Much of the time of the members is given to the study ot toe
law. This must be carried out continuously, day and night,
throughout the year. In every group of ten there mvut always be at
least one man studying or interpreting the law. The members p
is divided into three shifts, in order to keep the reading and ex¬
position of the law going throughout the night
In accordance with the basic desire to fulfill all the demands of
the law, there is a rigid insistence on ritual purity. The punishment
for offenses usually includes exclusion from what is called, literally
the “purity” of the order. The word “purity" here is a technical
term for objects, and especially foods, that are ritually pine and
therefore to be used only by those who are in a state of ntual
purity. In my translation of these documents, accordingly, I adopt
the rendering “sacred food.” A man who is sentenced to punish-
236 Dead Sea Scrolls
meat for two years is not allowed to touch “the purity of the holy
men" during the first year, and cannot touch “the drink of the
masters" even in the second year. This is in accord with rabbinic
regulations, by which the use of sacred liquids is more strictly
limited t h an the use of solid substances that are sacred. Before
touching the “purity," the repentant offender must be immersed
in water, but such immersion is unavailing if one is not a member
of the order, or if one is unworthy. Various forms of ritual ablu¬
tion are prescribed; the idea of washing in a spiritual sense is
characteristic also.
One of the major ritual observances of the group was the annual
ceremony of entering and renewing the covenant. The liturgy of
this rite is given in some detail in the Manual of Discipline. It
includes the pronouncement of blessings by the priests and curses
by the Levites in the manner of the ceremony described in
Deuteronomy 27. The blessings, as we have seen, are based on the
Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:24-26, while the curses consist
largely of the opposites of the blessings. Brownlee has pointed out
that a similar annual ceremony of renewing the covenant appears
in the book of Jubilees (6:17).
The closing psalm of the Manual of Discipline speaks of prayer
at sunrise, at sunset, at the new moons, at the festivals, and at the
beginning of the year. Whether these were periods of common
prayer by the group or periods of private prayer is not clear. The
intimate devotional tone of the passage makes the latter alternative
somewhat more probable.
Two public prayers in connection with warfare are mentioned in
the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness. One is the
“prayer of the appointed time of war,” which is recited by the
priest before a battle; the other is the “prayer of the return,” which
is sung by the whole army after a victory. On the morning follow¬
ing the battle, also, the. warriors are told to return to their stations
and "bless the God of Israel.” Another reference to congregational
prayer has been seen in the obscure words of one of the Thanks¬
giving Psalms: “who array [i.e., set themselves in array?] to thee
in the assembly of the saints."
Origin, History, and Organization 237
The members of the group “eat, bless, and consult together.”
At the beginning of the common meal the priest blesses the bread
and the wine. The directions for the common meals become vivid
when one recalls that the excavation of Khirbet Qumran has un¬
covered the refectory of the order. No mention is made of the
common meal in the Damascus Document. This fact has been
taken as an indication that the Manual of Discipline is of later
origin than the Damascus Document, the institution of the com¬
mon meal having developed in the meantime. On the other hand,
the “two columns” in the Palestine Museum, which Barth&emy
regards as representing an earlier phase of the movement than
the Manual of Discipline, already speak of a sacred meal. Here,
however, it seems to have an eschatological character, for the
“Messiah of Israel” is present, having a place lower than the
priest and receiving the bread only after the priest has blessed it.
The attitude of the group toward the temple and its sacrifices
is somewhat confusing. The Manual of Discipline makes no ref¬
erence at all to the temple or to sacrifice except in obviously
figurative expressions. The community itself is “a holy house for
Israel, a foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron.” Its life and
worship are regarded as having power to expiate sin. Prayer is
called “the offering of the lips.” Such expressions have been
thought to indicate that the group had broken all connection
with the worship of the temple. Aside from the fact that the
manuscript of the Manual is incomplete, however, the absence
of laws concerning sacrifice does not necessarily imply a with¬
drawal on principle from the temple worship. In the Damascus
Document, although the priesthood of the temple is condemned
for not observing the law, there are actually regulations concern¬
ing offerings that are to be sent to the temple. The Habakkuk
Commentary denounces “the wicked priest” and “the last priests
of Jerusalem,” but this severe condemnation of priests for profan¬
ing the sanctuary, like the cleansing of the temple by Jesus, shows
a high respect for it and its institutions.
In the Damascus Document the sect is called a “house of divi¬
sion" because it withdrew from the holy city when Israel defiled
338 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the sanctuary. The lawfulness of animal sacrifice as such, however,
is not questioned. Prayer is preferred to unworthy sacrifice, but
so is it in the Old Testament. There is no evidence that sacrifice was
practiced elsewhere than in the temple. It has been suggested that
the rules concerning sacrifice in the Damascus Document are
survivals from the period before the separation from temple wor¬
ship, and that they were retained because the group expected
later to resume worship at the temple. This seems quite probable.
The later rabbis who produced the Talmud studied minutely the
laws concerning the temple and its ritual long after the temple was
destroyed. Orthodox Jews have continued to do so ever since, be¬
lieving that when the Messiah comes he will restore the temple.
Both the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document
emphasize the observance of the festivals at the proper times. The
religious calendar was, in fact, an object of concern for all branches
of Judaism. One of the crimes of Antioch us Epiphanes was that
he undertook “to change the times and the law” (Daniel 7:25)*
The Judean covenanters committed themselves “not to advance
their times nor postpone any of their appointed festivals.” The
Damascus Document mentions sabbaths and festivals among the
“hidden things in which all Israel went astray."
The Habakkuk Commentary changes the text of Habakkuk
3:15, making it read, “to gaze on their festivals.” The following
lines interpret this as a reference to the appearance of the wicked
priest on the Day of Atonement, “to confound them and to make
them stumble on the day of fasting, their sabbath of rest.” There
is a close parallel to this, at least in language, in one of the Thanks¬
giving Psalms:
so that God beheld their error,
going mad at their festivals.
In another connection we have noted S. Talmon’s interpretation
of the passage in the commentary on the assumption that the sect
followed a calendar different from that of the temple priesthood.
The wicked priest, Talmon suggests, appeared before the group
on the day it observed as the Day of Atonement. Is was “their
Origin, History, and Organization 239
sabbath of rest," but not his. The verbs “to confound" and “to make
stumble” mean that he undertook to prevent them from keeping
their Day of Atonement. Talmon recalls a striking parallel to this
incident: at about the end of the first century a.d. Rabban Gamaliel
ordered Rabbi Joshua, whose view of the calendar he considered
unorthodox, to appear before him with staff and purse on the day
which Rabbi Joshua believed to be the Day of Atonement.
A few lines in the Manual of Discipline are of particular interest
in this connection. The closing psalm contains the expression, “at
the coming of seasons to the days of a new moon." Dupont-
Sommer connects this with a calendar prescribed in the book of
Jubilees and I Enoch. The Damascus Document, as a matter of
fact, explicitly refers to the book of Jubilees for an explanation of
the sacred times. The calendar of Jubilees and Enoch, which was
later adopted by the Maghariya and the Karaites, clearly repre¬
sents a reaction against the official calendar.
The prevalent system of fixing the festivals by the first ap¬
pearance of the new moon, and trying to adjust the lunar cycle of
months to the solar cycle of seasons, was discarded by the author
of Jubilees. By his calendar the year was divided into four seasons,
beginning on the first day of the first, fourth, seventh, and tenth
months respectively. Each season consisted of 91 days (two
months of 30 days each and one of 31). Thus the year had 364
days, exactly 52 weeks. This had the advantage of making the
festivals fall always on the same day of the week.
But the lunar month has only twenty-eight days; consequently
the first of the month by this sectarian calendar would fall back
more and more into the phase of the waxing moon. By the end of
a year the observance of the new moon would come ten days after
the real new moon. Dupont-Sommer sees an allusion to this, and
so an indication that this was the calendar of the sect, in the words,
“at the coming of seasons to the days of a new moon." Two lines
later we read of “holy days in their ordered sequence as a memorial
in their seasons." Dupont-Sommer takes this to refer particularly
to the sabbath, emphasizing the fact that in this calendar the
sabbaths are determined by reference to the seasons because each
240 The Dead Sea Scrolls
season contains exactly thirteen sabbaths. An expression in the
next line, “at the beginning of years and in the circuit of their
seasons,'’ indicates, Dupont-Sommer believes, that the sect began
its year in the spring. In that case the New Year was observed on
the first day of the first month, whereas orthodox Judaism then,
as now, observed the New Year in the autumn, on what by the
spring calendar was the first day of the seventh month.
Most readers will probably feel that Dupont-Sommer’s in¬
ferences are acute but by no means obvious. The general con¬
clusion that the Qumran sect accepted the 364-day calendar, how¬
ever, seems to be well established. Some connection between the
calendar of Jubilees and that of the covenanters is clearly evident
in the passage already cited from the Manual of Discipline, The
“day of remembrance" recalls the language of Jubilees 6:24,28,29.
The year is divided into four seasons as in Jubilees, the years are
grouped in weeks, and a time of liberation corresponding to the
year of jubilee is mentioned.
This calendar was probably not a new invention but followed
an old tradition. Barth 61 emy argues that it was the calendar in
general use at the beginning of the Hellenistic period. The lunar
calendar, adjusted to the solar year by the occasional “inter¬
calation" of an extra month, was itself an innovation, adopted
under Hellenistic influence. This argument is taken up and de¬
veloped by Miss A. Jaubert. The book of Jubilees, she points out,
insists that the feast of weeks must fall on the fifteenth day of the
third month. If the year begins on the first day of the week, and
each month contains thirty days, the fifteenth day of the third
month will fall on Friday; but Leviticus 23:isf and Deuteronomy
16:9 require that it come on Sunday, the day after the sabbath.
The later Magharians met this difficulty by beginning the year
on Wednesday. The dates given for the travels of the patriarchs
in the book of Jubilees show that here too the beginning of the
year on Wednesday is presupposed. Miss Jaubert demonstrates
this by a table which shows that there is only one day of the week
on which the patriarchs are never said to set out on a journey or to
arrive anywhere. If this day is assumed to be Saturday, each of the
Origin, History, and Organization 241
four seasons begins on Wednesday. The fifteenth day of the third
month then falls on Sunday, as the law requires; and the Day of
Atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month, falls on Friday.
The four new moons, the Passover, and the Feast of Tabernacles
come on Wednesday also, as do all the main events in the history
of the patriarchs. This works out much too neatly to be explained
by mere coincidence. The full application of the theory involves
some arithmetical complications, but they need not detain us here.
Barth&emy, we have seen, believes that this calendar was in
general use before the Hellenistic period. Miss Jaubert raises the
question whether it may have been an even more ancient Israelite
calendar. By a detailed investigation she reaches the conclusion
that the calendar of Jubilees was that of the priestly school of
historians that edited the Hexateuch, and from which the work
of the Chronicler came. According to her theory, it originated
not later than the Babylonian exile and was the religious calendar
of post-exilic Israel, though for civil purposes the calendar prev¬
alent in the Persian empire was used. After the Macedonian con¬
quest and the spread of Hellenism the religious calendar was
threatened even in its own domain, the festivals. Hence arose
a bitter struggle within the priesthood itself between Hellenists
and anti-Hellenists. Even the Maccabean rising may have had
some connection with this controversy. Later, however, even the
descendants of the Maccabees seem to have renounced the old
priestly calendar. Their desertion of the ancient tradition is what
is condemned in the books of Enoch and Jubilees. It finally
resulted, Miss Jaubert suggests, in the division and persecution
reflected by the Habakkuk Commentary.
Beginning where Miss Jaubert leaves off, J. Morgenstem reaches
quite different results, but he agrees that the calendar of Jubilees
was an ancient one. He argues, indeed, that it was a somewhat
modified survival of a "pentecontad” calendar originally of Amorite
or Canaanite origin and adopted by the Israelites at the time of
the conquest of Canaan. Through various vicissitudes, which we
cannot follow here, it survived among the farming people, espe¬
cially in the north, and in sectarian groups. Traces of it appear
242 The Dead Sea Scrolls
in the Gospels and even in the practice of Palestinian peasants
to this day. To examine this thesis in detail would take us much
too far afield, but it must be mentioned as an instance of the
ramified associations of the religious institutions reflected in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
There is still more to be said about the intriguing tenth column
of the Manual of Discipline. The first five lines contain three
mysterious letters in which Brownlee has discerned an acrostic
on the three consonants of the Hebrew word amen ( mn). The
aleph (’) is attached in the manuscript to the end of the verb
“decreed" (if it is a verb); Brownlee takes this letter, however,
as the initial consonant of the Hebrew word for God, ' elohim ,
though he mentions also other possible explanations. The m
appears in the obscure statement, "the M is large”; the n in the
equally mysterious statement, “the letter N is for the unlocking
of his eternal mercies." Noting that the shape of the n in fh<«;
script is like that of an ancient key, Brownlee sees in the passage
a probable reference to the Messiah, who with the "key of David”
will unlock “the sure mercies" (Isaiah 55:3) of "the God of
Amen" (Isaiah 65:16).
Dupont-Sommer rejects Brownlee’s interpretation and asks
what a reference to the Messiah would be doing in the midst of
an enumeration of sacred times. He regards the aleph of Brownlee s
acrostic as an Aramaic form of the feminine ending of a noun
meaning "decree.” What Brownlee takes to mean "the M” is
thought by Dupont-Sommer to be either a mistake in the text
or the pronoun “they,” emphasizing the suffix in the preceding
"their renewing themselves.” Not very likely at best, this expla¬
nation involves two or three grammatical difficulties.
For the "letter N” Dupont-Sommer offers a striking and attrac¬
tive explanation of his own. The letters of the alphabet in the
Hebrew, as in the Greek, alphabet were used as numerals, and the
letter n stood for the number 50. Among the Pythagoreans and
various Gnostic groups the number 50 was considered especially
sacred. Dupont-Sommer quotes two passages from Philo, point¬
ing out that in a right-angled triangle with sides measuring 3 and
Origin, History, and Organization 243
4 the hypotenuse measures 5, and the sum of the squares of these
three numbers is 50. The number 50 was therefore regarded as the
perfect expression of the right-angled triangle, the symbol of
“the supreme principle of the production of the world,” as Philo
says.
In the passage in the Manual of Discipline, Dupont-Sommer
connects “the letter N" with the preceding words, the “holy of
holies,” reading “the holy of holies and the letter N.” This he
takes to be a hendiadys, indicating not two things but one, like
"this day and age.” The expression “holy of holies and the letter
N” means therefore “the supreme sacredness of the number 50.”
Brownlee, more plausibly I think, construes “the holy of holies
with the preceding words and supposes that a new clause begins
with the words “and the letter N.” Dupont-Sommer’s explanation
of the n, however, does not stand or fall with this particular
detail of interpretation.
For the expression "the key of his eternal mercies” also Dupont-
Sommer finds an explanation in the statement of Philo, for if the
number 50 has the supreme sacredness Philo attributes to it, it
may well be called the key to God’s eternal mercies. Since the
whole passage deals with the observance of the festivals, the
reference to the number 50 implies that the calendar embodies
all the sacredness of the right-angled triangle.
It may be that there is truth in the ideas of both Brownlee and
Dupont-Sommer concerning this passage, which is at best ex¬
tremely obscure and perhaps deliberately so. Barth 61 emy points out
that the three letters in Brownlee’s acrostic have a total numerical
value of 91 (1 4- 40 + 50), the number of days in each of the
four seasons of the calendar of Jubilees. This indicates, Barth^lemy
thinks, that the author of the closing psalm of the Manual of
Discipline meant the three letters to be understood as an acrostic.
This may well be so, but it does not exclude the particular sig¬
nificance seen by Dupont-Sommer in the n. Not only the total
value of the three letters in the acrostic but also each letter by
itself may have had a mystical meaning for the poet.
The covenanters were not wholly preoccupied with matters of
244 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ritual purity and the observance of sacred times. Their devotion
to the law included moral and social righteousness also. In con¬
sidering the organization and discipline of the community we
have already seen something of their moral ideals. The problem
concerning their attitude to war, for example, has been mentioned.
While the War scroll is animated by the idea of a holy war, the
Manual of Discipline makes no reference to warfare, and its
studious sons of light seem different from those of the War scroll,
though it is true that they swear to hate all the sons of darkness.
All the more striking is the fact that in the two columns of a
document like the Manual there are references to armies and to
war. This, in fact, is one of the reasons for believing that the two
columns do not belong to the Manual of Discipline. The latter not
only does not mention war; it counsels the members of the com¬
munity to leave the punishment of the wicked to the final judg¬
ment. The two columns, however, regard war as ordained for
the destruction of the gentiles.
The attitude of the sect toward material possessions has already
been mentioned. The reading “wealth” instead of “wine” in
Habakkuk 2:5, as quoted in the commentary, may be recalled.
It will be remembered also that while the Manual of Discipline
permits no private ownership of property, at least among the full
members of the group, there is a rule requiring restitution for any
destruction of the property of the order, while the Damascus
Document allows the members of the group to earn wages and
retain them, delivering to the superintendent of the camps only
the wages of two days out of each month.
The difference between these two compositions concerning
marriage also has been mentioned in connection with the organ¬
ization of the community, together with the references to women
and children in the two columns in the Palestine Museum and the
presence of some skeletons of women in the cemetery at Khirbet
Qumran. Whatever these facts may mean, Hempel remarks that
women clearly played no such part in the community as they
did in the early Christian church. Marriage with a niece is strongly
condemned in the Damascus Document. Whatever attitude to
Origin, History, and Organization 24$
marriage the group or any branch of it may have had, all the
texts emphasize a strict ideal of purity. Even lustful glances‘are
condemned. The rules for the meetings of the group emphasize
also modesty and seriousness.
In general it may be said that the moral ideals of the cove¬
nanters of Qumran are much like those of similar monastic groups
in other religions, but quite unlike those of orthodox Judaism at
many points. They are the ideals of a group that has withdrawn
from the world into a separate life of rigid discipline and purity,
going into the desert to prepare the way of the Lord by the
study of the law.
XII
Beliefs
irLnjmrLruijmnj^^
Religious beliefs, as well as forms of organization and moral ideals,
are reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, though of course not com¬
pletely or in any systematic way. Enough may be discerned, at
any rate, to afford a basis for comparison with other Jewish sects
and parties of the same period. Such a comparison may enable us
to identify the covenanters of Qumran with one of these; if identity
cannot be established in any instance, more or less close relations
or affinities between the covenanters and some other sect or sects
may be discernible.
The covenanters obviously held the Scriptures in high esteem,
as did all Jewish parties and sects. They apparently possessed and
accepted all the books that were finally retained in the Jewish
canon of the Old Testament when it was fixed after the destruction
of the temple. The law and the prophets are extensively quoted in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and used as authoritative expressions of
God’s will The covenanters undertake, as the Manual of Dis¬
cipline says, “to do what is good and right before him as he com¬
manded through Moses and through all his servants the prophets.”
All three parts of the Old Testament canon—law, prophets, and
"writings”—are quoted in the scroll of Thanksgiving Psal m s. Por¬
tions of almost all the books of the Old Testament have been
identified among the fragments discovered in the caves of the
Wady Qumran.
How far what was accepted by the community as sacred litera¬
ls
Beliefs . 447
ture included books other than those of our Hebrew Bible cannot
yet be determined. Whether the covenanters had any conception
of what we call a canon is uncertain; in any case their library
included much more than our Old Testament. The Damascus
Document quotes by name the book of Jubilees, and the unknown
book of HGW is mentioned as an authoritative work both in the
Damascus Document and in one of the fragments acquired by
the Palestine Museum. Many works that did not find a place in
the Jewish canon were obviously copied and cherished by the
covenanters, as the large number of books represented by the
manuscript fragments abundantly attests. How their attitude to
these works compared with their attitude to the books of our Old
Testament we cannot yet say.
The interpretation of Scripture plays a large part in the litera¬
ture of the sect. It is hardly too much to say, with Brownlee, “The
sect had its birth in biblical interpretation." It is interesting to
compare the way in which the covenanters use and interpret the
Old Testament with the way other Jewish writers and the writers
of the New Testament interpret it. Direct quotations followed by
explanations appear in the Damascus Document, the Habakkuk
Commentary, and to a lesser extent the Manual of Discipline.
Sometimes statements are supported by quotations with the intro¬
ductory formula, “as it is written.”
The authority for the interpretation is found in a new revela¬
tion given to the leader of the sect, the teacher of righteousness,
who is called "the priest into whose heart God put wisdom to
explain all the words of his servants the prophets, through whom
God declared all the things that are coming upon his people
and his congregation." This new revelation goes beyond what
the prophets themselves were able to see; for example, “God
told Habakkuk to write the things that were to come upon the
last generation, but the consummation of the period he did not
make known to him”; what the prophet himself did not see,
however, was revealed to “the teacher of righteousness, to whom
God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants
the prophets.”
248 The Dead Sea SctoUs
The interpretation put upon the Scriptures is primarily histor¬
ical, not in the sense that it corresponds to modem conceptions
of historical criticism and interpretation, but in the sense that
everything is supposed to refer directly to the history of the
group itself. Not only are events of the writers’ own times inter¬
preted in the light of Scripture; it is even more characteristic that
the Scriptures themselves are interpreted in the light of recent
events. A rapid perusal of the Habakkuk Commentary and the
Damascus Document will show how freely texts are combined,
interpreted, and applied to present conditions and events in a
way quite foreign to their real meaning.
If such a use of Scripture appears strange to the modem reader,
innumerable examples of exactly the same practice can be found
in popular expositions of prophecy today. To give just one example,
a very recent book makes the ridiculous statement that the “ships
of Kittim” in Daniel 11:30 are the British ships that were sent from
Cyprus in the First World War to attack the coasts of Syria and
Palestine, and that verses 40-42 of the same chapter refer to the
British occupation of the Middle East; and this is followed by
an ominous conclusion regarding Egypt’s effort to throw off British
control! The covenanters of Qumran never went to greater ex¬
tremes of absurdity than that.
When biblical material is used in the scrolls for the life and
worship of the community, there is a good deal of free adaptation
and modification. An excellent example is the benediction pre¬
scribed for the priests in the Manual of Discipline, which is an
adaptation of the “Aaronic benedicton* of Numbers 6:24-26.
Borrowing a device used by Brownlee, the translation that follows
uses italics for the words that are drawn from the ancient
benediction.
Vfay he bless you with all good and keep you from all evil;
May he give light to your heart with living wisdom and be gracious to
you with eternal knowledge;
May he lift up his loving countenance to you for eternal peace.
Beliefs 249
A similar use of biblical language with free expansion may
sometimes be observed today in the non-liturgical Protestant
churches. Closing a service of worship with Paul’s benediction at
the end of II Corinthians 13, for example, ministers often are not
content to stop where the apostle stopped, but seem impelled by
a craving for liturgical sonority to add "both now and for
evermore.”
The way in which the Old Testament is interpreted in the
Habakkuk Commentary involves a curious fact which we noted
in discussing the text of the Old Testament as it appears in die
Dead Sea Scrolls. The text of Habakkuk as quoted in the com¬
mentary sometimes appears in one form, while the explanation
that follows the quotation seems to presuppose a different form
of the text. In Habakkuk 1:11, for example, where the standard
text reads “guilty man, whose might is his god,” the quotation
in the commentary reads, “and he makes his might his god”; yet
the interpretation that follows seems to reflect the idea of guilt,
for it mentions a “guilty house.” The quotation of Habakkuk
2:15 reads "their festivals” where the standard text has “their
nakedness”; yet the verb in the ensuing explanation, at least as
understood by some scholars, means “uncover him.” (In this case
the interpretation of the passage in the commentary is question¬
able; see pp. 153-56.) The quotation of Habakkuk 2:16 reads
“stagger” instead of “be uncircumcised”; yet the explanation in¬
cludes the clause, “because he did not circumcise the foreskin of his
heart” Some scholars believe that in these places the commentator
was acquainted with two different readings of the text, both the one
he quoted and the one presupposed by his interpretation. Delcor
suggests that he may have used a manuscript of Habakkuk in
which the readings of the Masoretic text were noted in the
margin. Another possibility is that the commentary was originally
composed on the basis of a text that followed the Masoretic read¬
ings, but a scribe who later copied the commentary altered the
quotations to agree with what he considered a superior text
The interest of the covenanters in the Old Testament was legal
250 The Dead Sea Scrolls
as well as historical. The correct interpretation of the law was
very important for them. The very purpose of the group’s exist¬
ence, in fact, was to prepare the way of the Lord by the study
of the law. The passage in the Damascus Document that speaks of
the leader of the covenant as the “star” that Balaam had said
would “arise out of Jacob” describes him and his associates as
interpreters of the law. The Habakkuk Commentary calls the
followers of the teacher of righteousness “doers of the law ”
Their adversaries are accused of despising the law and opposing
God’s commandments. One of the Thanksgiving Psalms calls the
teachings of false interpreters “smooth things," borrowing this
term from Isaiah 30:10. The Hebrew word is halaqot; the
Pharisees called their legal precepts halakot, and perhaps, as
Brownlee suggests, the writer of the psalm may have intended a
pun on that term by his use of the word halaqot, subtly implying
that the Pharisaic interpretation of the law was false.
A candidate for admission into the community had to be ex¬
amined “with regard to his understanding and his deeds in the
law.” Entering the covenant involved taking an oath to return
wholeheartedly to the law of Moses. So important was the study
and interpretation of the law for the community that a special
place was set aside for the purpose, and at every hour during the
day and night it was required that members of the group be
present and engaged in this pursuit. Since the same Hebrew verb
means both “to study” and "to interpret,” Brownlee supposes that
what was done in this place was not so much individual or group
study as “oral exegesis.” The procedure was perhaps a good deal
like that of the rabbis and their disciples in their discussions of
the law.
The Manual of Discipline prescribes that the sons of Aaron
shall govern the community according to the "first ordinances"
until the expected coming of “a prophet and the Messiahs of
Aaron and Israel." The expression “first ordinances” suggests an
unalterable set of regulations, perhaps the laws of Moses them¬
selves, which are to be the constitution for the government of
the community until the end of the age. I have already suggested
Beliefs *151
that this passage may be a protest against innovation in the
organization and rules of the sect itself. It may equally well be
a hostile allusion to the oral traditions of the Pharisees, which
applied the law of Moses in ways that often involved rather bold
interpretations. Jesus criticized these traditional interpretations
of the Pharisees, charging that the scribes made God’s law of no
effect by their traditions; he interpreted the law freely, however,
according to its inner intent, and did not consider it, as the
covenanters did, a code to be preserved without change and strictly
enforced.
The interpretations of the law in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Damascus Document, and their relation to the rabbinic inter¬
pretations later crystallized in the Talmud, should be thoroughly
investigated. This can be done only by specialists in rabbinic
law. Such a comparison might contribute much to the under¬
standing of both the scrolls and the rabbinic literature, illuminating
the development of the legal traditions of the rabbis before they
attained final form in the Talmud.
Verm&s remarks that the return to the law of Moses involved a
legalistic type of piety, culminating in a scrupulous concern for
ritual purity, but he adds that all this stress on the law did not
produce a merely mechanical, external observance. The Manual
of Discipline emphasizes also the necessity of sincere, whole¬
hearted devotion. Obedience to the law, as Verm&s rightly says,
meant for the covenanters a response to a divine revelation, not
a revelation of truth to be believed but a revelation of duties to
be done. Acceptance of this revelation and obedience to it implied
confidence in God’s promise; thus obedience was an expression of
faith. This, one may add, is fully in accord with the basic Jewish
conception of religion as “obedience to the revealed will of God."
At the same time, the piety of the covenanters was a sectarian
piety. Only within the community was true obedience to the
law supposed to be possible.
In addition to the devotion of the covenanters to the Hebrew
Scriptures, there are elements in their thinking that have suggested
various kinds of gentile influence. In particular, many scholars
25 2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
see in the Dead Sea Scrolls reflections of the religious movement
known as Gnosticism. Others find no trace of Gnosticism in them.
The question whether the covenanters were Gnostics is important
for the understanding of the sect of Qumran and its place in the
history of religion. We must therefore devote some attention to it.
To some degree it is a question of definition. What is meant
when one speaks of Gnosticism? In the strictest sense the term
refers to a heretical form of Christianity that arose in the second
century a.d. This Christian heresy, however, was not an entirely
new or unique phenomenon; it was a strange amalgam of ideas
both new and old, some of them going back all the way to ancient
Babylonian religion. It is possible therefore to think of Gnosticism
as a general movement of thought affecting other religions as well
as Christianity. The Christian or pseudo-Christian Gnosticism of
the second century was undoubtedly only one phase of this move¬
ment, which was essentially more pagan than Christian. Many
scholars believe that there was a pre-Christian type of Jewish
Gnosticism; others deny this. Those who believe it see in the Dead
Sea Scrolls new evidence for their contention.
When we speak of Gnosticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there¬
fore, the question is not whether the covenanters were Gnostics
in the strictest sense, defined in terms of the Christian heresy, but
whether they belonged to the general movement or tendency
known as Gnosticism in a broader sense. At the same time the
terms Gnostic and Gnosticism should not be used in such a broad
way that their meaning becomes vague and confusing. They should
be reserved for forms of religion, whether Christian or non-
Christian, that exhibit at least the most characteristic features of
Gnosticism as represented by the second-century Christian heresy.
To judge on its merits the question of Gnostic influence in the
scrolls, let us consider in turn the most characteristic features of
Gnosticism and ask what evidence for each of them can be found
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. In so doing we shall of course remember
that these documents do not represent all the beliefs of the Qum¬
ran covenanters. We cannot assume that all of their beliefs were
ever committed to writing at all. If any idea does not appear in
Beliefs 253
the scrolls, we shall not fall into the fallacy of an "argument
from silence,” supposing that we have proved that the sect had
no such belief. We shall conclude merely that, since no evidence
of the belief in question has survived, its existence cannot be
assumed.
The first and most essential of the characteristic features of
Gnosticism is the conception of salvation by knowledge, not
achieved by learning but received by mystical illumination, either
through lonely contemplation or through participation in sacra¬
mental rites, though an element of instruction is involved also.
This basic idea is indicated by the very name Gnosticism, derived
from the Greek word gnosis , which means knowledge.
There is undoubtedly a strong emphasis on knowledge in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document. A few typical
passages may be quoted by way of illustration. "God loves the
knowledge of wisdom; and sound wisdom he has set before him;
prudence and knowledge minister to him.” Dupont-Sommer calls
this a characteristic statement of Gnosis. Again, “ . . and in the
heat of God's anger against the inhabitants of the earth he com¬
manded that their knowledge should depart from them before they
completed their days.” This is perhaps an allusion to Genesis 6:3,
and what is meant may be merely the general confusion of mind
characteristic of senility. Commenting on Habakkuk 2:14—“For
the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of YHWH
as the waters cover the sea’—the Habakkuk Commentary says,
“And afterward knowledge will be revealed to them like the
waters of the sea in abundance.” Dupont-Sommer speaks of this
as the revelation of the divine Gnosis. The Manual of Discipline
says that the members of the sect must bring their knowledge
as well as their wealth and their strength into the community. A
man who refuses to enter the covenant has “refused instruction
and knowledge of righteous laws.” The “sons of truth” are those
who "walk humbly with prudence in all things and love for the
truth of the mysteries of knowledge.”
The most frequent and perhaps most significant references
to knowledge in the Manual of Discipline are in the concluding
*54 The Dead Sea Scrolls
psalm, which calls God the “source of knowledge and fountain of
holiness.” Later in the same passage the writer makes these
statements:
With wise counsel I will conceal knowledge,
and with knowing prudence I will put a hedge about [wisdom].
For from the source of his knowledge he has opened up my light
My eye has gazed on sound wisdom,
which has been hidden from the man of knowledge,
and prudent discretion from the sons of man.
Blessed art thou, my God,
Who openest to knowledge the heart of thy servant
Thou hast taught all knowledge.
The verb “know” is used in the Thanksgiving Psalms in ways
that have been thought to reflect Gnostic ideas: e.g., “I know
that there is hope for him whom thou hast formed from the dust
for the eternal assembly,” and “I know that man has no righteous¬
ness." These expressions recall a statement in the Manual of Dis¬
cipline: "I know that in his hand is the judgment of every living
thing." In such contexts this verb has no more Gnostic significance
than it has in such a biblical passage as Job 19:25: “I know that
my Redeemer lives."
The same thing may be said of the way the noun “knowledge”
is used. One of the Thanksgiving Psalms includes the words, “to
open the fountain of knowledge to all who understand.” Another
psalm says of the "babblers of lies and seers of deceit” that “they
withheld the draught of knowledge from the thirsty.” Dupont-
Sommer, quoting this passage, asserts that Gnosis is one of the
essential concepts of the sect; but again a close biblical parallel
may be cited: “Woe to you lawyers 1 for you have taken away the
key of knowledge; you do not enter yourselves, and you hindered
those who were entering” (Luke 11:52).
Not only the word "knowledge" but also such synonyms as
Beliefs *55
"wisdom,” "prudence," "understanding,” “insight,” and the like
appear often in the scrolls. The vocabulary in this respect is much
the same as that of the Old Testament book of Proverbs. The fact
that knowledge is emphasized does not of itself indicate Gnostic
influence. A reflection of such influence may perhaps be seen in
the degree of emphasis, but actually the stress on knowledge is
no greater in the Dead Sea Scrolls than it is in the wisdom litera¬
ture of the Old Testament.
The saving knowledge of the Gnostics was believed to be given
by revelation. In the Dead Sea Scrolls also knowledge is thought
of as having been revealed. The following lines from one of the
Thanksgiving Psalms afford a typical expression of this idea:
For thou wilt make me wise in wonders like these,
and in the company . . . thou wilt give me knowledge.
In keeping with this is the frequent reference to divine mysteries.
The Habakkuk Commentary declares that "the mysteries of God
are marvelous,” and again a little later: "For all the periods of God
will come to their fixed term, as he decreed for them in the myster¬
ies of his wisdom." Similar expressions appear in the Thanksgiving
Psalms; for example, "for thou hast caused me to know thy mar¬
velous mysteries.” The same expression, “thy marvelous mysteries,”
occurs in the War scroll, which speaks also of the "dominion of
Belial and all the mysteries of his enmity,” recalling the Apostle
Paul's expression, "the mystery of lawlessness.” The mysteries of
God’s understanding and his "marvelous mysteries” are mentioned
also in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.
A few other typical statements from the Manual of Discipline
may be quoted in this connection. The section on the two spirits
says that the sins of the sons of righteousness are caused by the
angel of darkness “according to the mysteries of God, until his
time.” The spirit of truth gives men "understanding, and insight,
and mighty wisdom, ... and a spirit of knowledge in every
thought of action, . . . walking humbly with prudence in all
things, and concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge.”
A later section of the Manual says that “those who choose the
2 5 *> The Dead Sea Scrolls
way” must be admonished'in order “to guide them in knowledge
and so to give them understanding in the marvelous mysteries and
the truth ” The closing psalm contains these lines:
For there is no other beside thee
to oppose thy counsel,
to understand all thy holy purpose,
to gaze into the depth of thy mysteries',
or to comprehend all thy marvels.
The idea of knowledge as the revelation of a divine mystery,
entrusted to a limited group, is characteristic of Gnosticism.
Salvation is attained by knowledge, but knowledge of what? It
is not knowledge in general, or learning, or practical wisdom that
brings redemption. The Gnostic idea is that salvation comes
through a comprehension of the nature of reality, of the soul’s
origin, nature, and predicament in this world, and of the way of
salvation from that predicament. The idea of what is known
by “the man of truth” that is expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls
is quite different from this Gnostic conception. What is meant
by knowledge in the scrolls has to do with the wonders of God’s
creation, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the meaning of the
divine laws man must obey.
Insistence on a knowledge of the law as necessary for salvation
is not characteristic of Gnosticism. It is an essential part of the
legal tradition of the Old Testament, carried on and developed
by rabbinic Judaism. The Pentateuch itself stresses the importance
of a knowledge of the law for the priests. Knowledge was exalted
by Judaism in general. Vermes remarks that those who speak
of non-Jewish elements in the Dead Sea Scrolls may be thinking
of Judaism too exclusively in terms of the Talmud, ignoring the
prayers of the synagogue. For the place of knowledge in Jewish
piety he cites one of the “Eighteen Benedictions,” as given in
the old Palestinian form represented by a manuscript from the
Old Cairo genizah: “Deign to grant us, our Father, a knowledge
coming from thee, a knowledge and a wisdom coming from the
Beliefs
Lord, who
dost
*5 7
deign to grant us
law. Blessed be thou, O
knowledge.”
The sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls are heirs to this tradi¬
tion. The central place of the law in what is meant by knowledge
in the Dead Sea Scrolls is unmistakable. Those who "have offered
themselves for his truth” are required by the Manual of Discipline
to "bring all their knowledge and strength and wealth into the
community of God, to purify their knowledge in the truths of
Gods ordinances.” The wicked man is condemned because "his
soul has abhorred the discipline of knowledge." It Is stipulated that
‘the counsel of the law must be concealed among the men of
error; but there must be admonition of true knowledge and
righteous judgment for those who choose the way.” Such an
association of knowledge with the law is as alien to Gnosticism
as it is characteristic of Judaism.
The Gnostic conception of reality and of the soul is expressed
in the form of an elaborate mythology. Reality is conceived as
pure spirit, uncontaminated by matter. The material world is
derived from the pure realm of spirit by a series of emanations or
generations like the successive pairs of gods and goddesses of the
pagan cosmogonies. The spiritual world of reality is often referred
to in terms of light, the material world of delusion in terms of
darkness.
In the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a dualism of light and darkness
that strikingly recalls this Gnostic dualism. The great warfare with
which the War scroll deals is called “the war of the sons of light
with the sons of darkness.” In the Manual of Discipline those who
“enter the covenant" are required “to love all the sons of light"
and “to hate all the sons of darkness ” The most interesting and
significant passage in this connection tells how God “created man
to have dominion over the world and made for him two spirits,
that he might walk by them until the appointed time of his
visitation." These two spirits are called “the spirits of truth and
perversion,” “the spirits of fight and darkness,” and also “the
prince of lights" and “the angel of darkness." Not only are “the
258 The Dead Sea Scrolls
sons of error" completely under the rule of “the angel of dark¬
ness"; even “the sons of righteousness” are led astray by him and
suffer affliction “in the dominion of his enmity,” but "the God of
Israel and his angel of truth have helped all the sons of light."
AH men are under the dominion of one or the other of the two
spirits, which struggle for mastery even within the individual soul.
But this is only for the duration of the present world order. God
has ordained an "appointed time of visitation," when he will
destroy evil and “make the upright perceive the knowledge of the
Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven.”
H. J. Schoeps, who had previously denied that there was a pre-
Christian form of Gnosticism within Judaism, announced recently
that this account of the two spirits in man had constrained him to
change his mind. But there is nothing here like the “endless
genealogies" of Gnosticism. The doctrine of the two spirits of
light and darkness has other non-Jewish affinities, as we may
see presently, but to call these ideas Gnostic seems to me to
necessitate stretching the term until it loses all specific meaning.
Dualism is here, yes; but it is a dualism of good and evil, not of
spirit and matter.
Another basic feature of Gnosticism is not found in this passage
or elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls or the fragments thus far
published. This is the conception of the soul as a spark of the
divine light that has become imprisoned in the dark world of
matter. This is not the belief of the Qumran covenanters. To call
the righteous "sons of light” and the wicked "sons of darkness” is
quite a different matter. The idea of an angel of darkness, who
not only owns and dominates the “men of Belial’s lot” but also
has some power over the "men of God’s lot” during the present age,
is very different from the Gnostic conception of the soul. Gnosti¬
cism regarded the soul as essentially pure, temporarily imprisoned
in the world, but needing only the knowledge of its origin, nature,
and true destiny to be freed from the bonds of the flesh and to
ascend through one sphere after another to its native abode.
This saving knowledge, according to the Gnostics, is given by a
divine Redeemer, who has descended from above to release the
Beliefs 259
souls of men and lead them back to the realm of light. It would be
difficult to find anyt h ing in the Dead Sea Scrolls even faintly
reminiscent of such conceptions. One thinks of the teacher of
righteousness and his revelation of the true meaning of prophecy,
but only by reading a great deal into what is said of him could
one imagine any connection with the heaven-descended Redeemer
of Gnosticism. The expectations concerning the Messiahs of Aaron
and Israel, of which more will be said later, come no nearer to
the Gnostic idea.
Points of contact between the Dead Sea Scrolls and Gnosticism
in other respects have been noted. Some, though not all, groups
of Gnostics followed a strictly ascetic life, as did the covenanters
of Judea. Here again, however, the similarity is not such as to
establish a relationship. Undoubtedly the scrolls contain ideas
and ideals resembling those of the Gnostics at various points. Some
indirect and indefinable historical connection is not impossible. On
the whole, however, it seems unnecessary and only confusing to
apply the term Gnosticism to the form in which such ideas appear
in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Above all it must be emphasized that knowledge is not in itself, -
according to the scrolls, the way of salvation. Knowledge of the
law is important, because only by obedience to the law can judg¬
ment be averted. Knowledge of prophecy is important for comfort
and encouragement to persevere in obedience. Knowledge of
God’s mysteries induces praise of and humble dependence upon
God. But knowledge has no saving power in itself; it is not the
immediate vehicle of deliverance. It is rather the answer to the
question, "What must I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
If Gnosticism did not directly influence the Judaism of the
Qumran sect, both may have drawn water from the same well. The
ideas in which a kinship between them has been seen were espe¬
cially at home in Zoroastrianism, the religion of ancient Iran. Per¬
haps, as Kuhn puts it, the Dead Sea Scrolls show us the point at
which the stream of Zoroastrian influence poured into the stream
of Jewish tradition and united with it. The combined stream then
flowed on, he says, into the New Testament on one side and into
20o The Dead Sea Scrolls
Gnosticism on the other. Iranian influence in Judaism has long
been recognized, but perhaps, as Dupont-Sommer observes, no
Jewish document exhibits this influence quite so clearly as the
section of the Manual of Discipline containing the account of
the two spirits, which has been summarized above. Dupont-
Sommer quotes passages from the Zoroastrian Scriptures concern¬
ing the spirits of good and evil that determine the lives of men.
Here, however, the good man chooses for himself the good spirit,
and the bad man chooses the evil spirit. We must come back later
to the “determinism" of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The theme of the two armies of light and darkness is especially
characteristic of Zoroastrianism. The evil power called Angra
Mainyu or Ahriman in Zoroastrianism is called Belial in the Dead
Sea Scrolls. Once in the War scroll and three times in the Manual
of Discipline “the dominion of Belial” is mentioned. The Manual
of Discipline calls the wicked “the men of the lot of BeliaL” In
the Damascus Document also Belial plays a prominent part. This
opposition of God and Belial is much closer to the Iranian d ualism
of good and evil than it is to the dualism of spirit and matter in
Gnosticism, but it is still closer to the opposition between God and
Satan in the Bible. The name Belial itself, in fact, is derived from
the Bible. The Jewish ideas of the kingdoms of God and Satan
had undoubtedly some historical connection with the Zoroastrian
idea of the cosmic war between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu,
though the nature of the relationship is a much debated and very
complicated problem. In any case it seems more accurate to call
the ideas of the Manual of Discipline Iranian than to call them
Gnostic.
Ira n ia n influence in Judaism appears particularly in the apoca¬
lyptic literature, including the book of Daniel in the Old Testa¬
ment and the non-canonical books of Enoch. Fragments of these
apocalyptic works have been found in the Qumran caves, and the
scrolls have affinities at several points with the apocalyptic litera¬
ture. Several writers have observed that the idea of divine myster¬
ies expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls is related to the apocalyptic
type of t hinkin g. The book of Daniel uses the same word for
Beliefs 281
“mystery” that appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the fragments
of several manuscripts of Daniel found in the caves prove that the
Judean covenanters were well acquainted with this book. Similar
expressions have been noted in the books of Enoch and in the
Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. The mysteries referred to
in the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, are different from those most
typical of the apocalyptic literature. Unlike the latter, they do
not consist of entirely new revelations, but rather of a true under¬
standing of the revelation given long ago in the law and the
prophets. This conception also, to be sure, occurs sometimes in
the apocalyptic books; witness Daniel’s explanation of the seventy
weeks of Jeremiah.
Another point at which a spiritual kinship between the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the apocalyptic literature may be seen is the belief
concerning angels and demons. Some of the same terminology used
in the Dead Sea Scrolls is found in the apocalyptic writings. The
scrolls seem to have no special term for demons or evil spirits,
but the word “angel” is applied to them—more often, in fact,
than it is to good spirits. The “angel of darkness” is a case in point;
“angels of darkness” are mentioned both in the Manual of Dis¬
cipline and in the Damascus Document. The latter speaks also of
the “angel of enmity.” Only once, so far as I have observed, is the
word “angel” used in the Manual of Discipline for a good spirit;
that is the reference to God’s “angel of truth.” Usually other
terms seem to be preferred for angels or good spirits. It is said
that the upright are given insight “into the wisdom of the son s
of heaven,” and that they receive “an inheritance in the lot of the
holy ones.” Both of these expressions probably refer to angels.
The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness says
that there are holy angels with the army of the righteous; in fact,
it uses the names of the archangels Raphael, Michael, and GabrieL
In the Thanksgiving Psalms "the army of the holy ones,” “the
congregation of the sons of heaven,” “the eternal assembly,”
“the assembly of the holy ones,” and “thy marvelous assem¬
bly" are mentioned. Dupont-Sommer takes all these to mean
the celestial assembly of the angels. He argues that the “holy
20 * The Dead Sea Scrolls
ones" and the “sons of heaven” include both angels and the souls
of the righteous, and he cites a widespread belief that associated
the angels and the souls of the righteous with the stars. One may
fairly doubt, however, that an assembly including both men and
angels is here contemplated. The word which Dupont-Sommer
and others translate “assembly” has a rather broad meaning, indica¬
ting in general a group or company.
In one of the Thanksgiving Psalms, God is addressed as “the
Prince of the gods and the King of the venerable ones, and the
Lord of every spirit, and the Master of every work.” Dupont-
Sommer, in commenting on this passage, recalls the fact that God
is called “the Lord of spirits” in the book of Enoch. Dupont-
Sommer is also probably right in taking the “gods” and the “ven¬
erable ones” to mean angels.
These questions of affinity with Gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, and
Jewish apocalyptic thought have already introduced us to some
of the most characteristic ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Whatever
foreign influences may have affected the ideas of the Qurnran
covenanters, their basic point of view and major doctrines were
thoroughly Jewish, derived primarily from the Old Testament.
The importance of the law and the prophets for them is enough to
prove this. They never doubted that Israel was God’s chosen
people.
They believed strongly in the doctrine of divine election—so
strongly, indeed, that their belief has even been called fatalistic.
A favorite word of the Manual of Discipline is the one used in the
Old Testament for the lot that was cast to determine matters of
dispute or doubt, such as the territory to be occupied by a tribe.
This term occurs fourteen times in the Manual and three times in
the Damascus Document, but with a special meaning. It is used
for the destiny allotted by God to each man, somewhat as we com¬
monly speak of a man’s lot in life. It also means the division of
mankind in which each man’s lot is cast. The righteous are ca lled
“the men of the lot of God”; the wicked are called "the men of
the lot of Belial.” The “lot of Belial" and the “people of God’s lot"
are named also in The War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of
Beliefs 263
Darkness. One of the Thanksgiving Psalms says, "thou hast caused
to fall on man an eternal lot.” Dupont-Sommer recalls in con¬
nection with this passage the statement of Josephus that the
Essenes believed everything that happened to be determined by
destiny.
In all this it is clear that for the covenanters election had to do
not merely with the chosen people as a whole but with individuals.
The conception of man's nature expressed in the section on the
two spirits has been called by L. Rost a deterministic theology.
Similar ideas appear in the Damascus Document, where, as Rost
points out, men seem to be divided into four groups according to
their assigned destinies. Such a division of individuals into groups
is quite different from the old Hebrew conception of the whole
nation as God's elect. The way had been prepared for a belief
in individual election, however, by the Old Testament ideas of
the righteous remnant and the new covenant Verm&s points out
that in the Damascus Document the history of mankind is divided
into five periods, in each of which God has set apart a saved
remnant under the leadership of his chosen servants. Since the
coming of the teacher of righteousness, the law can be rightly
kept only within the community of his followers. Membership
in the community is therefore a sign of the divine election. The
election of the nation is of course still presupposed, but the stress
is now on an election of individuals who have joined the com¬
munity. In other words, the idea of the chosen people has become
in effect the idea of a church. Whether the conception of the
community made any place for Gentiles is another question. The
only hint that this may have been so is the mention of the “so¬
journer" or "proselyte” in the Damascus Document, and this
may possibly refer only to candidates for membership who are
under going probation.
Belief in election or predestination is not, as commonly supposed,
an expression or source of pride, but rather the reverse. Certainly
this is true of the covenanters of Qumran. Their assurance that
they possessed the true revelation of what the law and the
prophets meant was accompanied by an acute sense of sinful-
264 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ness. The writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls regarded man as weak
and utterly dependent upon God. This is expressed by the term,
“thing formed from clay.” Being helpless and weak, man must
depend upon God for both wisdom and righteousness. Perhaps
the most impressive expression of humble reliance on God in the
scrolls is the closing hymn of the Manual of Discipline.
Having considered the sect’s belief concerning man’s present
condition and the meaning of salvation, we turn now to its ideas
concerning God's agents of salvation. These include the bearers
of revelation in the past and any Messianic bringer of redemption
expected in the future. Moses was of course revered as the first
giver of the law; indeed, the law of Moses was so highly esteemed
that even the mention of it in an oath is forbidden in the Damascus
Document. Second only to Moses was Zadok, the high priest of
the time of David, because he reopened the books of the law,
which had been sealed up since the death of Eleazar and Joshua.
Our word “Messiah” is an Anglicized form of the Hebrew word
meaning “anointed.” It is commonly applied to the king as “the
Lord’s anointed,” and it is from this usage that we get the term
Messiah as a designation of the future king promised by the
prophets. In the Old Testament, however, the same term is also
applied to the high priest; therefore when the Damascus Docu¬
ment says, “And through his anointed one he shall make them
know his Holy Spirit," the reference may be not to the coming
king but to Zadok. The reference to God, the anointed one, and the
Holy Spirit together in this passage seems to Dupont-Sommer to
foreshadow the doctrine of the Trinity. Any such inference, how¬
ever, is unwarranted, because the anointed one here is probably
not the Messiah at all in the sense of the future king.
In other passages, however, the word “anointed” or “Messiah”
is clearly used for one who is to come at the end of the present
age. The Manual of Discipline, in fact, speaks of not one but
two coming Messiahs: “but they shall be ruled by the first laws
with which the men of the community began to be disciplined,
until the coming of a prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and
Israel*” Several references to “the Messiah of Aaron and Israel” or
Beliefs 265
“from Aaron and Israel” occur in the Damascus Document, but
this use of the word in the singular may be the result of later
alteration, either through misunderstanding or through a deliber¬
ate correction at a time when the idea of two Messiahs seemed
inacceptable.
The two Messiahs may be supposed to represent the king and
the high priest of the future. In that case it seems rather strange
that the royal Messiah is expected to be from Israel instead of
Judah. Possibly, however, “Israel" is used in a comprehensive sense
for the whole people, and “the Messiah of Israel” means the lay
Messiah, so to speak, while “the Messiah of Aaron" is the priestly
Messiah. The conception of a Messiah from the priestly tribe
of Levi appears in the apocryphal Testaments of the Twelve
Patriarchs and in the rabbinic literature, often in perplexing
combinations with other ideas.
In one of the Palestine Museum’s two columns from a docu¬
ment related to the Manual of Discipline there is an account of
a meal resembling closely that of the-Manual, but including a
reference to the Messiah of Israel. There is also a reference to
“the prince of the whole congregation," who may be the same
person. The Manual of Discipline does not mention the Messiah
of Israel except where he appears with the prophet and the
Messiah of Aaron. The Messiah of Israel in the “two columns"
is subordinated to “the priest" in the description of the banquet.
The banquet here described may be not a real meal but the
eschatological banquet of the rabbinic literature.
Apart from the use of the term “anointed” there are other indi¬
cations of Messianic ideas in the scrolls. A series of what
Barthdlemy considers Messianic variant readings in the St. Mark’s
Isaiah manuscript is noted when we come to the importance of the
scrolls for textual criticism. A reference in the Damascus Docu¬
ment to "the arising of the teacher of righteousness at the end
Qf days” suggests some connection between the teacher of right¬
eousness and the coming Messiah.
Dupont-Sommer, in fact, believes that the writer of the Damas¬
cus Document expected the teacher of righteousness to return
266 The Dead Sea Scrolls
at the end of the world as the Messiah. To support this view he
quotes the expression “from the gathering in of the unique teacher
to the arising of the Messiah from Aaron and from Israel,” but
this implies a distinction between the unique teacher and the
Messiah rather than their identification. Believing that the teacher
of righteousness was put to death in 65-63 b . c ., Dupont-Sommer
infers that the end of the world was then expected very soon.
All this is connected with his interpretation of the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary, where he finds an implication that the teacher of right¬
eousness will return as the Messiah, though the teacher of right¬
eousness is not actually given that title. It seems more reasonable to
say with Verm&s that while the Messiah would undoubtedly be
a teacher of righteousness, the teacher of righteousness who
founded the sect should be distinguished from the one who would
come and teach righteousness at the end of days.
The place of the teacher of righteousness in the scheme of sal¬
vation has been well summarized by Verm&s. The righteous are
those who have listened to the teacher of righteousness, and the
wicked are those who have refused to listen. What is essential
for salvation is faith in the mission of the teacher of righteousness
and fidelity to his teaching. In other words, his role is precisely
that indicated by his title: he is a teacher of righteousness. Hempel
points out that there is nothing in our documents of an incarna¬
tion of the divine Word in the teacher of righteousness, and no
such hymn as that of Paul in Philippians 2 is sung about him. There
is no trace of a gospel with the teacher of righteousness as its
center.
A quite different line of connection between the teacher of
righteousness and what may be called in a broad sense Messianic
ideas has recently been suggested by Brownlee, though he does
not argue that the teacher of righteousness was the Messiah. In
several of the Dead Sea Scrolls he finds indications that the teacher
of righteousness was identified with the servant of the Lord
depicted in Isaiah 40-55. Who is meant by the servant in these
chapters is still a matter of debate among Old Testament scholars.
In many passages the servant is explicidy identified with Israel;
Belief* 367
e.g., “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have
chosen!" (Isaiah 44:1). For centuries, however, many have
believed that the servant was the Messiah, especially in chapter
53, which describes the suffering of the Lord’s servant for the
sins of others. From the earliest days of the church Christians have
felt that Christ himself was portrayed in these chapters (see,
e.g., Matthew 8:17; 12:17-21). There are many, however, who
believe that in all these passages the servant was originally a
collective figure, standing for the people of Israel.
In Isaiah 52:14, where the traditional text says of the servant,
“his appearance was so marred,” the St. Mark’s manuscript reads,
“so I have anointed his appearance.” Brownlee considers this a
deliberate alteration for the purpose of interpretation, the verb
“anointed” suggesting a connection with the Messiah. We con¬
sider this variant reading of the text in Chapter XTV. Rightly
understanding the expression "his elect” in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary as plural, Brownlee sees in it a collective interpretation of
the Lord’s servant as the righteous people of God. The elect
must undergo suffering like that of the servant, and like the
servant they will be given judgment over the Gentiles. In the
closing hymn of the Manual of Discipline, as Brownlee interprets
it, the sect is given the threefold function of the servant of the
Lord: prophetic witness (Isaiah 43:10), priestly atonement
(Isaiah 53), and royal judgment (Isaiah 42:1). This conception
of the community as the servant of the Lord, however, finds its
realization in the person of the teacher of righteousness.
Many ingenious arguments for the identification of the teacher
of righteousness with the Lord’s servant are advanced by Brown¬
lee. They are more elaborate and far-reaching than can be indi¬
cated here. To me they are not convincing, but they indicate a pos¬
sibility that deserves consideration. It is interesting to observe
that I. Sonne finds in the opening lines of one of the Thanksgiving
Psalms “an expanded paraphrase of Isaiah 42:6.” He suggests
that the leader of the sect himself may have claimed to be the
servant of the Lord.
Other aspects of what the covenanters looked for at the end
268 The Dead Sea Scrolls
of the age must be mentioned. The expression “at the end of the
days is not only used in connection with the arising of the teacher
of righteousness; it is also associated with the sons of Zadok, who
are said to be “the elect of Israel, called by name, who are to
stand at the end of the days.” In the Habakkuk Commentary there
is a reference to “those who will act treacherously at the end
of days.” In one place "the end of days" is connected with the
invasion of the Kittim, for the commentator says of "the last
priests of Jerusalem, who assembled wealth and booty from the
spoil of the peoples,” that "at the end of days their wealth with
their spoil will be delivered into the hand of the army of tho
Kittim."
We have already discussed the possibility that the War of the
Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness refers not to any war
on the plane of history but to an eschatological war. One of the
fragments found in 1949 in the excavation of the first cave was
from an unknown apocalyptic poem. After referring to the fact
that the wicked of ancient times ignored God's warning and
therefore perished, the poem promises the sure victory of light
over darkness and the imprisonment of the wicked angels. Justice
will then shine like the sun, and the world will be filled with knowl¬
edge, while the wicked will vanish forever.
During the present age the righteous suffer persecution. The
frequent references to persecution in the Thanksgiving Psalms,
together with a picture of the final catastrophe in one of them and
the statements of devastation by the Kittim in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary, are taken by Vermes to reflect die common idea of a
time of great tribulation just preceding the end of the world. It
is characteristic of apocalyptic thought to believe that the last
time has begun. The present is that darkest of all hours which
just precedes the dawn. Faith in the teacher of righteousness
involves the conviction that this is so, and that the trials his
followers are now enduring are a test of their perseverance and
fidelity.
The future was only partially revealed to the prophets, for
“the last period extends over and above all that the prophets
Beliefs 269
said." But "all the periods of God will come to their fixed term as
he decreed for them in the mysteries of his wisdom.” Then the
"doers of the law in the house of Judah" will be delivered "from
the house of judgment because of their labor and their faith in
the teacher of righteousness.”
Later we read again of "the house of judgment, whose judg¬
ment God will set in the midst of many peoples; and thence he
will bring it up for judgment, and in their midst will condemn it
and punish it with fire of brimstone.” Those who were enticed
by the preacher of the lie will "come into judgments of fire,”
and "in the days of judgment God will destroy all the worshipers
of idols and the wicked from the earth.” The execution of judg¬
ment on both Gentiles and wicked Jews will be committed to the
elect: "God will not destroy his people by the hand of the nations,
but into the hand of his elect God will deliver the judgment of
all the nations and by their chastisement all the wicked among
his people will be punished.”
A Hebrew noun that means primarily "end” is often used in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document in the sense of
"time” or "period," as it is also in the book of Daniel and occasion¬
ally elsewhere. In the Damascus Document we read of the period
of wrath, the period of wickedness, the period of office of the sons.
of Zadok, the period of the destruction of the land, the period of
the first visitation, and the period of Israel’s transgression. There
is also a more general statement about periods. All these expres¬
sions refer to periods in history, but we hear also of the "consum¬
mation of the period of these years” in the future and the eschato¬
logical "period of visitation.” The "period of wrath” is mentioned
in the Thanksgiving Psalms. The Manual of Discipline uses the
word with reference to the proper periods for the celebration of
the festivals, the astronomical divisions of time, the period of the
afflictions of the wicked, the “periods of recompense” of the
righteous, the "periods of the ages” during which the divisions of
mankind have their allotments, the period appointed for the ex¬
istence of evil, and the final period when the dominion of evil
will come to an end.
270 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Many expressions containing the Hebrew word for "eternity”
are used in the Manual of Discipline to indicate the destinies of
the wicked and the righteous. The wicked are eternally cursed;
they are under eternal hatred or eternal enmity; they will suffer
in the darkness of eternal fire. Their fate will be eternal destruc¬
tion. The righteous are promised eternal peace, eternal light,
eternal truth, eternal glory. A description of what awaits both the
wicked and the righteous is given in the Manual in the section on
the two spirits in men.
How did covenanters conceive of the future life of tho in¬
dividual? Did they, in common with many other Jews of the
time, believe in a resurrection of the body? If not, did they accept
the idea of the immortality of the soul? A belief in the resurrection
has been inferred from a few passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The curse to be pronounced by the Levites on the wicked, accord¬
ing to the Manual of Discipline, includes a statement that has been
translated "and he will not make you live,” which would mean
that the wicked will not be raised from the dead. The text, how¬
ever, does not say "make you live" but quite plainly "be favorable
to you."
A reference to the resurrection of the body has been seen also
in the statement of one of the Thanksgiving Psalms, “And I know
that there is hope for him whom thou hast formed from the dust
for the eternal assembly.” Other scholars draw quite different
inferences from these words. Vermes, for example, sees here a
suggestion of the immortality of the soul, but not of the whole
man. Such a Platonic conception seems strange in Judaism, but to
show that it was not unknown Vermes quotes a statement of
Josephus concerning the Essenes and also a Jewish tombstone in¬
scription from Egypt. The Qumran covenanters, he suggests,
expected the final judgment before the end of their own genera¬
tion, and therefore were not concerned about the resurrection of
the body. What they expected was neither the resurrection of the
body nor the immortality of the soul alone, but the “assumption”
of the whole person in a purified body.
Starting from the same passage, van der Ploeg has made a
Beliefs 271
special study of the idea of the future life in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The obvious kinship of the sect with the Essenes, he says, would
lead us to expect a belief in the immortality of the soul apart from
the body, and he believes that an examination of the texts turns
this expectation into certainty. According to the Manual of Dis¬
cipline, the men of Belial will suffer eternal punishment and the
righteous will have '’eternal joy in the life of eternity.” There is
little in the texts that suggests a renewed bodily life on earth,
whereas there is much about existence in the world of light above,
the world of God and the angels.
From an obscure passage near the end of the Manual of Dis¬
cipline, which seems to indicate an eternal life in the company of
the angels, van der Ploeg infers an interpretation of the Thanks¬
giving Psalm that was the starting point of his inquiry. It suggests
to him "a sort of Elysian fields," with a host of angels, including
the members of the sect.
Other passages in the Thanksgiving Psalms seem to imply that
the souls of the righteous will dwell in the presence of God and
the angels. The friends of God will enjoy his presence forever.
Prayer is offered to God "in the assembly of the holy ones.” Noting
that these expressions recall the language of the Old Testament
psalms, van der Ploeg concludes that the sect had either taken
up again an old tradition concerning the future life or had received
these ideas from some other source and read them into the psalms
by reinterpretation.
The picture that emerges from all this is not clear in detail, but
the main lines stand out fairly distinctly. By way of summary we
may say that the Qumran sect was a Jewish group, devoted to the
divine revelation given to their forefathers in the law and the
prophets. Like other Jewish groups, however, they had their own
way of interpreting the Scriptures. Unlike most other Jewish
groups, they even believed that they had been granted a new
revelation that made clear the true meaning of the Scriptures. In
the prophets they found their own past and future prefigured.
Affinities with Gnosticism can be seen in beliefs of the sect, but
the covenanters did not depart so far from the ancient Hebrew
* 7X The Dead Sea Scrolls
traditon as to adopt the metaphysical dualism of the Gnostics or
then- elaborate mythology of redemption. They believed that all
thmgs were ordained by God. Even the existence of evil and the
struggles between good and evil in human society and in the
individual soul were part and parcel of the divine plan. At the end
of the appointed period God would deliver his elect and destroy
the hosts of wickedness. 7
Back of these ideas lie not only the ancient Hebrew tradition
but also the moral dualism and the angclology and demonology of
Iranian religion. Iranian influence may have been at work also in
the sects beliefs concerning salvation. Possibly no more such
foreign elements need be assumed than were already embodied
m the latest books of the Old Testament and the post-biblical
apocalyptic writings. It is also possible, however, that new cur¬
rents of thought from the general mixture of traditions and cul¬
tures we call Hellenism had made their way into the side-stream of
Judaism.
Be that as it may, the covenanters firmly believed that they
were Gods elect, not only as members of the chosen people but
also individually as sons of light, the men of God’s lot. They had
entered the covenant and were members of the community that
beheved m the teacher of righteousness as the inspired inter-
P re ' e , r 01 . * e f roy^ries. They looked for a prophet and
the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. They confidently expected the
judgment and eternal punishment of the sons of darkness, when
the dominion of Belial would be brought to an end. They fer¬
vently hoped to be cleansed of all evil by the spirit of truth and to
enjoy eternal felicity in the presence of Gbd with the angelic
Whatever else may be said of the Qumran theology, this much
clear. But who were these people? What kind of Jews were
they? Can we identify them with any of the groups within Judaism
Known to us from other sources?
XIII
Identification
IJTJTTlJnjTJTJTJTJmriJT^^
Not one but several identifications of the Qumran community
sect have been proposed and defended by scholars, though re¬
cently a disposition to regard the question as settled has become
apparent. Using the clues provided by our survey of the char¬
acteristic features of the sect, we must now try to examine all
the possibilities. Tho problem is by no means simple. No name
for the group is given in any of the documents. In the Manual of
Discipline it is apparently assumed to be "all Israel." Judah, as
distinguished from Israel, is not mentioned. In the War scroll,
however, the sons of light are explicitly identified os the tribes of
Levi, Judah, and Benjamin; that is, the priestly tribe and the two
tribes that constituted tho kingdom of Judah. On the other hand,
the Damascus Document reflects a hostility to Judah and a con¬
nection with the northern tribes.
Since we are dealing not with one text but with many, we can¬
not of course take it for granted that all the texts come from the
same sect or party. All the writings contained in the scrolls and
fragments found in the Qumran caves were no doubt accepted
and used, but they were not all necessarily produced by the sect.
Even if they represent branches or successive phases of the same
general movement, one such phase or branch may prove identical
with a particular group in Jewish history, while those represented
by other documents cannot be so identified. It is possible to hold,
for example, as Barth&emy does, that the "two columns” come
*73
274 The Dead Sea Scrolls
from the early Hasidim, while the Manual of Discipline comes
from the later sect of Essenes.
One fact is obvious, and it may serve as our point of departure.
The group is evidently conservative, striving to maintain laws and
traditions once and for all delivered to the ancients. Not only so,
it is reactionary, in the sense that it clearly arose as a reaction
against what its members considered innovations and departures
from the faith of the fathers. The question before us is whether any
such reactionary movement known in the history of Judaism can
be confidently regarded as the movement that produced our docu¬
ments.
With the spread of Hellenistic culture and customs in Palestine
during the third century and early second century b.c., those Jews
who were faithful to the traditions of their fathers and resisted
the new ways of living came to be known as the Hasidim, the
“loyal" or “devout." In the Old Testament this word is used for
the righteous, godly people who are persecuted by the wicked.
It is often translated “saints." Carried over into Greek in the form
Asidaioi, it appears in I and II Maccabees as a designation of the
devout men “who willingly offered themselves for the law," join¬
ing forces with the Maccabees in the revolt against Antioch us
Epiphanes.
When Demetrius I made Alcimus high priest in 161 b.c., the
Hasidim withdrew from the Maccabean revolt and tried to make
peace with Alcimus, because he was “a priest of the seed of Aaron,"
but he treacherously killed sixty of them in a day. In general they
seem to have been less militant than the Maccabees, and after
the achievement of religious liberty they did not support the
Maccabees or their successors, the Hasmonean rulers. They are
often called the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees, though the
exact relationship is not clear.
Not a few scholars have identified the covenanters of Qumran
with the Hasidim. The term Hasidim, however, seems to designate
devout, conservative Jews in general rather than a definite sect or
party. We may therefore say that the organized sect of the Dead
Identification 275
Sea Scrolls arose among the Hasidim, but this does not yet provide
a specific identification.
The histories of Josephus, the New Testament, and the rabbinic
literature speak of the Sadducees and the Pharisees as the two
major groups within Judaism. Can the covenanters be identified
with either of these? The Sadducees, though described by Josephus
as one of the four Jewish “philosophies,” seem not to have been in
reality a party, to say nothing of a sect, but rather a class, though
doubtless they stood together on political and religious issues as
social classes usually do. They were in general the wealthy aris¬
tocracy, of which the temple priesthood was the most conspicuous
and powerful element. They accepted only the Pentateuch as
Scripture, interpreted the law very strictly, and rejected the
Pharisaic system of oral tradition concerning the meaning of the
law. They also rejected the new beliefs in angels and resurrection
of the dead, which were espoused by the Pharisees.
The name Sadducee was probably derived from the name Zadok
and is the equivalent of Zadokite. Some historians have thought
that the Sadducees were so called as followers of a man named
Zadok who lived in the Hasmonean period. Other explanations
also have been proposed, but the most widely accepted and most
probable view is that they were called Zadokites because they
proudly considered themselves the descendants and successors of
the Zadok who was high priest under David and Solomon. When
the Damascus Document was published the prominence of the
sons of Zadok in it led scholars to suspect an association between
the covenanters and the Sadducees. Further study soon showed
that they could hardly be identical Dupont-Sommer points out,
for example, that the covenanters highly honored the prophets,
whereas the Sadducees did not accept the prophetic books as
Scripture.
To account for the use of the term “sons of Zadok” in the scrolls,
Dupont-Sommer suggests that before the Maccabean crisis, of the
second century b.c. there may have been devout priests who called
themselves sons of Zadok to signify their authentic priestly lineage
276 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and their attachment to the traditional faith and cult. They were
not the same group as the covenanters, but there was probably a
division within the sons of Zadok, when those who felt themselves
drawn to a higher religious ideal separated themselves from the
rest and formed the sect of the new covenant. Such a connection
with dissident members of the Zadokite priesthood is questioned
by de Vaux. He suggests that in calling themselves sons of Zadok
the priests of the Qumran community were reclaiming a title that
had been appropriated and abused by the Sadducees. That the
sect arose within the priesthood seems to me thoroughly prob¬
able. In any case, the covenanters were certainly not the group
called Sadducees in the New Testament, the rabbinic literature,
and the works of Josephus. The denunciation of the priests of
Jerusalem in the Habakkuk Commentary would of itself be enough
to prove that
Schoeps protests against deriving a picture of Judaism in the last
century b.c. and the first century a.d. from a description given by
Josephus for the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. The real back¬
ground for the Dead Sea Scrolls, he feels, is to be found in what is
said about the Sadducees in patristic and rabbinic sources. He
rails attention particularly to a group called Zadokites, who are
said to have arisen among the priests in the last half-century be¬
fore Christ. They called themselves righteous and condemned
obeying the law merely for the sake of rewards. Their founder,
Schoeps thinks, may have been a man named Zadok who was
called the teacher of righteousness. One of the manuscripts of
the Damascus Document actually reads at one point "teacher
Zadok" instead of "teacher of righteousness,” though most scholars
consider this a mistake in copying.
The medieval Karaite, al-Qirqisani, includes in his history of the
Jewish sects a confused but suggestive account of the Sadducees.
Their leaders, he says, were two men named Zadok and Boethus,
pupils of Antigonus, the successor of Simeon the Righteous. This
suggests a date in the second century b.c. The Talmud, however,
speaks of the family of Boethus as one of four high-priestly families
in the first century a.d., and Josephus mentions a man named
Identification 2 77
Boethus as the father of Joazer, who was high priest early in that
century. If the same man is referred to, this would place Boethus,
and consequently Zadok, in the last century b.c.
Since the names “Zadokite” and “Sadducee" are the same in He¬
brew, what al-Qirqisani says about the followers of Zadok and
Boethus may not really refer to the Sadducees at all. The name
Zadok is from the same root as the Hebrew word for righteousness,
and it is not entirely beyond the bounds of possibility that al-
Qirqisani’s Zadok was really the teacher of righteousness of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. In that case, of course, he was not the founder
of the sect. His followers would then be Zadokites but not Saddu¬
cees; the latter would still be the dominant priestly class, who
probably derived their name from the high priest of David and
Solomon. All this, which seems to me possible though not very
probable, would provide a theory closely resembling that of
Schoeps, except that the covenanters would not be identified with
the Sadducees of any period.
If the covenanters of Qumran were not Sadducees, were they
Pharisees? The name Pharisee means "separated,” though just
what separation gave rise to it is somewhat uncertain. As devout
adherents of the law, the Pharisees were separated from the
Hellenists, who had deserted it. In their zeal for the observance
of the law they separated themselves from all defilement and all
causes of defilement. When the Hasmoneans, in their ambition to
gain power, violated the law, the Pharisees separated from them.
Whatever may have been the first occasion for calling them
separatists, the term may have come eventually to suggest all
these kinds of separation.
Devoted as they were to the observance of the law, the Pharisees
were more progressive than the Sadducees in its interpretation.
They applied and adapted it to changing conditions and enlarged
areas of life. This was done by the development of the oral tradi¬
tion, later codified and ultimately embodied in the Talmud. They
also accepted as sacred the books of the prophets and the other writ¬
ings, though the exact extent of the canon was not yet defined. Un¬
like the Sadducees, they accepted the beliefs concerning angels,
278 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the belief in the resurrection of the dead, which seem to have
come into Judaism during the Persian period and at least in part
through Persian influence.
The exhortation of Isaiah 40:3 to prepare the way of the Lord
in the wilderness is explained by the Manual of Discipline as
meaning the study or interpretation of the law. So far the cove¬
nanters might well be Pharisees. Several scholars have argued that
they were. The Pharisees also had societies somewhat resembling
the organization of the covenanters. Such a society was called a
haburah, and the members were called haberim; but they were also
called rabbim, as the members of the sect are called in the Manual
of Discipline.
A careful comparison of the Pharisaic haburah and the com¬
munity of the covenanters has been made by Saul Lieberman, who
points out many similarities. Before being admitted to member¬
ship in the Pharisaic societies, candidates undertook to observe
strictly the laws of ritual purity. Admission was preceded also
by an investigation of the candidate’s previous observance of the
law, and was granted in two separate stages, with an intermediate
period of probation. Some of the same terminology was used that
we find in the Manual of Discipline.
The differences between the regulations of the Pharisaic so¬
cieties and those of the Judean covenanters seem to Lieberman
no greater than some of the differences among the Pharisees them¬
selves. In general, the rules of the Munual of Discipline are more
strict than those of the Pharisees, but there are some indications
that the Pharisaic rules had once been more strict than those found
in the later rabbinic literature. Some views expressed by indi¬
vidual rabbis, Lieberman suggests, may reflect older traditions of
sectarian groups whose ideas were quite different from those of
rabbinic Judaism as a whole.
Lieberman’s general conclusion is that "we must be very cau¬
tious in drawing conclusions from similarities and differences
between the regulations of the sects. . . . Every sect probably
had its divisions and subdivisions. Even the Pharisees themselves
were reported to have been divided into seven categories. It is
Identification a 79
therefore precarious to ascribe our documents definitely to any of
the known three Jewish major sects.”
Sensible and sound as this conclusion may be, there is one of
the "three major Jewish sects,” that of the Essenes, which, ever
since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has been thought of
as being perhaps the group that produced them. The possibility
of this identification is immediately suggested by the fact that the
scrolls were found in the very region where the Essenes are said to
have had their headquarters. The first person to suggest that the
scrolls might have been hidden by Essenes during a period of
persecution seems to have been Ibrahim Sowmy, who came with
his brother Butrus to bring the scrolls to the American School at
Jerusalem. My diary for March 19,1948, says that in the afternoon
I "worked on the 'Essene' manuscript,” meaning the Manual of
Discipline. Our first news release, dated April 10,1948, after men¬
tioning two of the documents, the Isaiah manuscript and the
Habakkuk Commentary, continued, "a third appears to be the
manual of discipline of a comparatively unknown little sect or
monastic order, possibly the Essenes.”
Many scholars have accepted the identification of the cove¬
nanters with the Essenes. Its first public champion was Dupont-
Sommer, to whom the similarities between the Essenes and the
covenanters seem so striking that he considers their identity cer¬
tain. Recognizing that there were different groups among the
Essenes, he insists that the Qumran sect was “a sect properly
Essene and not para-Essene.”
Who were these Essenes? Aside from some references in the
rabbinic literature, our knowledge of them comes chiefly from the
historian Josephus and the philosopher Philo. There is also a brief
statement in Pliny’s Natural History. Josephus, Philo, and Pliny all
lived in the first century a.d., when the Essenes were flourishing
and the community of Qumran was still studying and copying
its manuscripts. Josephus was a general in the war with Rome
which brought to an end the settlement of the covenanters as
well as the worship at the temple. He had undoubtedly seen
Essenes, and perhaps had known some of them personally. Philo,
280 The Dead Sea Scrolls
who lived in Egypt, probably had only a second-hand knowledge
of them. Even the account of Josephus must be read with some
caution. In his desire to make a favorable impression on his
gentile readers, he describes the Essenes, like the Sadducees and
Pharisees, as a school of philosophy. There is more specific and
apparently reliable information, however, in his account of the
Essenes than in what he says about the Sadducees and Pharisees.
Both Josephus and Philo say that there were about four thou¬
sand Essenes. Somewhat divergent statements are given, however,
concerning the location of their settlement or settlements. Pliny,
in connection with his description of the Dead Sea, speaks of
the Essenes as living “away from the western shore, far enough
to avoid harmful things, a people alone, . . . companions of palm
trees.” It is not clear whether the “harmful things” are the harmful
qualities of the Dead Sea itself, as some think, or the evils of the
world from which the Essenes have taken refuge. According to
Philo the Essenes live in villages in order to avoid the lawlessness
and defilements of cities, but he goes on to say that they live in
many of the cities of Judea, while Josephus says that there are
many of them in every city.
So long as only one cave was known, and only the first pre¬
liminary sounding had been made at Khirbet Qumran, it seemed
that archeology was on the side of those who denied that the
covenanters were Essenes. The dating of the pottery in the late
Hellenistic period seemed to exclude the occupation of the cave
during the time when the Essenes were known to have lived in
that region. The later excavations removed this chronological
difficulty, and the installations uncovered at Khirbet Qumran
could be easily understood as belonging to a settlement of the
Essenes; consequently de Vaux abandoned his previous doubts
and accepted the identification of the covenanters with the
Essenes. For myself I must say that the geographical connection
remains the strongest reason for regarding the Qumran sectarians
as Essenes. If they were not the same, there was hardly room
for both Essenes and covenanters in the vicinity of the Wady
Qumran.
Identification 281
The geographical situation, however, is by no means our only
criterion for determining the relationship between the Essenes
and the sect of Qumran. The accounts of Philo and Josephus con¬
tain a good deal of information about the organization and dis¬
cipline, the ritual and moral practices, and the theology of the
Essenes. With all this we can compare in some detail the data in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document.
It is apparent at once, among other things, that there are
some resemblances between the Essenes and the covenanters in
the titles of their officials. Both Philo and Josephus say that the
Essenes honor most of all, after God himself, one whom Josephus
calls “their lawgiver’* and Philo “our lawgiver.” This may mean
a leader of the sect itself; on the whole, however, it seems more
probable that the revered lawgiver was Moses. Many passages
in the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Moses was held in high honor by
the covenanters. Both Josephus and Philo speak also of a steward
who receives the wages of the members, manages the common
property, and makes all necessary purchases. The Greek word
translated “steward” corresponds very well to the Hebrew tide
I have rendered as “superintendent” in the Manual of Discipline
and the Damascus Document.
Among both Essenes and covenanters there was a period of
probation preceding admission to membership. Josephus speaks
of three stages of probation, each lasting a year, before a candidate
was received into full membership by the Essenes. Similar stages
of probation are attested by the Manual of Discipline for the cove¬
nanters. An apparent difference may be seen in the fact that the
probation lasted only two years among the covenanters; but, as
Brownlee points out, only the last two of the three years required
by the Essenes were regarded as being spent within the fraternity.
Such differences as this, he observes, may also be due to changes
made in the course of time. Further parallels can be seen in the
limitations imposed upon those undergoing probation, in the in¬
struction given them, and in the examination to which they are
subjected before being admitted.
The candidate for membership was required by the Essenes to
282 The Dead Sea Scrolls
take a solemn oath. According to the summary given by Josephus,
the oath included piety, justice, abstention from harming others,
hatred of the wicked and helpfulness to the righteous, loyalty,
obedience to those in authority, restraint in exercising authority,
love of the truth, reproof of liars, refraining from theft or any kind
of unlawful gain, frank disclosure of all things to fellow members,
keeping secret the doctrines of the sect, preserving its books and
the names of the angels.
Dupont-Sommer finds many of these items reflected in the Man¬
ual of Discipline; he even goes so far as to say that the oath of
initiation there prescribed, more than any other contact, points
incontestably to the identification of the sect with the Essenes.
The obligation to reveal none of the secrets of the sect to out¬
siders is not specifically mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but
there are a few possible allusions to it. The care said to have been
taken by the Essenes to preserve their sacred books recalls the
careful preservation and hiding of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the
caves.
Josephus speaks of four divisions or classes among the Essenes.
Dupont-Sommer explains these as different degrees of member¬
ship, the four classes being respectively the postulants, the novices
of the first year, the novices of the second year, and the full mem¬
bers. Josephus says explicitly, however, that the division into four
classes was made after the completion of probation. The ancient
Israelite division of the people into thousands, hundreds, fifties,
and tens reappears in both the Manual of Discipline and the Da¬
mascus Document, but how it actually functioned is not clear,
except that it is associated with the great annual assembly for re¬
newing the covenant. It may also have served a military purpose,
as it did in ancient Israel. The War scroll presupposes a rather
elaborate military organization based on the tribes and clans of
Old Testament times. The regulation in the Manual of Discipline
and the Damascus Document requiring the constant presence of
a priest with every group of ten is connected specifically with the
study of the law.
Philo tells us that when the Essenes assembled they were seated
Identification 283
in classes according to age, and the younger members listened
attentively to their elders. The order of seating in the meetings of
the Qumran covenanters also was strictly prescribed, according to
the Manual of Discipline. The members observed a strict rotation
in speaking, and departures from the regular order were allowed
only by the consent of the assembly. Similarly, Josephus tells us,
when ten of the Essenes met together no member could speak
without the permission of the other nine. A curious point of co¬
incidence between the rules of the Essenes and those of the Manual
of Discipline is the prohibition of spitting in the midst of the as¬
sembly.
A conspicuous feature of the life of both Essenes and cove¬
nanters was the common meal. The account of the meals of the
Essenes given by Josephus contains a number of details not indi¬
cated in the Manual of Discipline or the “two columns” in the
Palestine Museum, but nothing that he says is inconsistent with
what appears there. In both cases it is said that a priest must pro¬
nounce a blessing before every meal; Josephus speaks also of a
priestly blessing at the end of the meal
Among both covenanters and Essenes decisions upon questions
of admission and discipline were made by the assembled members,
although the Damascus Document, as we have noted, contem¬
plates also the existence of judges. According to Josephus, no sen¬
tence was passed among the Essenes by a court of less than a
hundred members.
There are certain similarities in the penalties prescribed for
various offenses, though they do not correspond exactly in detail.
Nothing in the Manual of Discipline or the Damascus Document
would prepare us for the rigor with which the Essenes, if we may
believe Josephus, allowed members expelled or suspended to starve
to death, or readmitted them only at the brink of death. It is not
incredible, however, that such severe measures were taken on
occasion by the Qumran community.
A major concern of both sects was the study and interpretation
of the law, and in both sects the members studied the law in groups.
Philo tells something of how this was done by the Essenes. One
284 The Dead Sea Scrolls
member, he says, read to the others from the sacred book, and
what was expressed in enigmatic or allegorical form was explained
by one of the most experienced men. Josephus says that some of
the Essenes could foretell the future from reading the Scriptures.
This may very well refer to the kind of biblical interpretation ex¬
emplified by the Habakkuk Commentary and the fragments of
similar commentaries on other Old Testament books which were
found in the caves of the Wady Qumran. The Habakkuk Com¬
mentary, it will be remembered, says that the teacher of righteous¬
ness was given insight surpassing that of the prophets themselves.
In theology too there are striking contacts between the Essenes
and the covenanters. Both emphasize strongly the complete sover¬
eignty of God as the source of all being. For the covenanters this
is shown especially by expressions used in the Thanksgiving Psalms
and in the psalm that concludes the Manual of Discipline. Josephus
and Philo alike attest it for the Essenes, though Josephus, when
describing the divisions of Judaism as schools of philosophy, makes
belief in fate rather than in God the distinctive position of the
Essenes. Philo, moreover, qualifies the Essene view by saying
that they considered God the cause of good but not of evil. We
have noted the idea of “the lot of God” and "the lot of Belial” in
the Manual of Discipline and the account of the two spirits in
man as indications of a belief in predestination among the cove¬
nanters.
The beliefs of the covenanters concerning the future life, which
we have considered in Chapter XII, are quite different from those
Josephus ascribes to the Essenes. "For the belief is fixed among
them,” he says, “that bodies are corruptible, and that the matter
of which they are made is not permanent, but that souls are im¬
mortal and abide forever, and having emanated from the clearest
ether they are bound to their bodies as to prisons, being dragged
down by a kind of magic spell; but that when they are freed from
the bonds of the flesh, they rejoice -as though released from long
bondage and are borne upward.” Josephus adds that this resembles
Greek ideas; it also recalls the basic concept of Gnosticism, for
which we have looked in vain in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Hippolytus
Identification 2 ®5
gives an account of Essene belief concerning the future life which
comes closer to what we find among the covenanters and in Juda¬
ism in general He compares the Essene idea of the abode of de¬
parted souls with the Greek idea of the isles of the blessed, but
he indicates that the soul will remain in this place only until the
last judgment, when the body will be raised and the flesh too will
be immortal. This runs directly counter to Greek and Gnostic
ideas.
At this point we encounter a difficulty that should be clearly
recognized and stressed, because it affects the whole effort to
compare the Essenes and the Qumran sect. We cannot tell how
accurately the beliefs of the Essenes are reported in our sources.
For the covenanters our evidence is sadly incomplete, but at least
it is direct and trustworthy. So far as it goes, we have the actual
literature written and read by the community of Qumran, even
the very copies they made and used themselves. For the Essenes we
have only what was said about them by outsiders writing in a
different language and for people who knew nothing at all about
them. The points of agreement are perhaps all the more significant
on this account, while the differences may be capable of various
explanations. At the same time, we cannot be so sure of our con¬
clusions as we could be if we had the same kind of evidence for
the two groups we are trying to compare. If the Essenes and the
covenanters were the same sect, we do have both kinds of evidence
for them, but that is just what we are trying to find out.
In matters of ritual the contacts between covenanters and Es¬
senes do not seem to be as close as in other matters. With regard
to animal sacrifice and worship at the temple there is even, ap¬
parently, a direct contradiction. According to Josephus the Es¬
senes did not offer sacrifices when they sent gifts to the temple,
but had lustrations and performed sacrifices of their own, being
excluded from the temple court. Philo says that they did not prac¬
tice animal sacrifice but cultivated a pure and holy state of mind.
This recalls an expression used in the final section of the Manual
of Discipline, “the offering of the lips.” The Damascus Document,
however, while putting some limitation on the number of sacri-
286 The Dead Sea Scrolls
fices, presupposes the practice of offering sacrifice. Unfortunately
there are obscure points in the texts of Josephus and Philo, as well
as in the Damascus Document, which make a definite conclusion
on this subject hazardous.
A similar lack of correspondence is to be noted in other rites
and forms of worship. Essenes and covenanters alike emphasized
prayer, probably public as well as private. For the Essenes our
sources indicate a strict daily regimen of prayer, work, and meeting
for worship as well as for meals and study. No such definite order
of occupations is specified in the extant portions of the Manual
of Discipline or the Damascus Document, but there are many
separate references corresponding to details in the routine of the
Essenes. Brownlee calls attention, for example, to the mention of
prayer at dawn and during the night. The former may be the
prayer before sunrise, “as if they made a supplication for its ris¬
ing,” mentioned by Josephus as a characteristic Essene practice.
There is no connection with the sun in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but
it is very doubtful that any element of sun-worship is implied by
Josephus’ reference to the sunrise.
Special ablutions and lustrations are stressed in the descriptions
of the Essenes. The Manual of Discipline alludes to waters of puri¬
fication but strictly limits their efficacy to those who are spiritually
fit and worthy. The Essenes—like other Jews, for that matter—
may well have had the same limitation. Certainly it is not justified
to see here, as M. Gottstein does, a radical difference between the
covenanters and the Essenes. He takes what is said about the im¬
possibility of gaming atonement by water to be a polemic against
baptismal rites, whereas the Essenes were a baptizing sect. There
is no real reason, however, to suppose that the attitude of the
Essenes was essentially different from that expressed in the Manual
of Discipline.
Strict dietary regulations are attributed to the Essenes by Jo¬
sephus. Because of the simplicity of their diet and the regularity
of their way of living, he says, many of them lived to an age of more
than a hundred years. He adds that in the war with the Romans the
Essenes endured the most horrible torture rather than eat any
Identification 287
food they considered unlawful. There is no indication of any such
extraordinary concern for correct diet in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Emphasis on the exact observance of sacred days is common
to the Qumran sect and the Essenes, but the particular observ¬
ances emphasized in our sources are not the same. The sanctity
of the sabbath was particularly stressed by the Essenes, accord¬
ing to all accounts. This emphasis is not apparent in the Dead
Sea Scrolls, though Brownlee points to a passage in the Damascus
Document as showing that the covenanters were more strict than
the Pharisees with regard to abstention from work on the sabbath.
The annual rite of entering and renewing the covenant, which
the Manual of Discipline describes at length, has no counterpart in
what is reported about the Essenes. Aside from the sabbath, in fact,
no such stress on sacred times as we have found in the Dead Sea
Scrolls is attested for the Essenes. Miss Jaubert, however, in her
study of the covenanters’ calendar, points out analogies between it
and the calendar of the Samaritans; and in this connection she cites
a statement of Epiphanius which treates the Essenes as a sect of
the Samaritans. Indications of some obscure relationship with the
Samaritans have been detected in the language of the Dead Sea
Scrolls. If both Essenes and covenanters had some connection with
the Samaritans, this may give some reason to suspect a connection
between the covenanters and the Essenes.
Notscher has remarked that the priests and Levites do not seem
to have had such a prominent position among the Essenes as they
have in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Document.
Schoeps, however, suggests that the term “sons of Zadok” in these
documents did not refer only to the priests but was used as an
honorary designation for the whole community. This is supported
by a statement in the Damascus Document: “The priests are the
captivity of Israel who went forth from the land of Judah, and
[the Levites] are those who joined them; and the sons of Zadok
are the elect of Israel, those called by the name, who will abide
at the end of days."
A different explanation is offered by Dupont-Sommer for the
lack of references to priests among the Essenes. Assu m ing that the
288 The Dead Sea Scrolls
number of members of the sect decreased in the course of time,
he suggests that this involved a proportionate decrease in the num¬
ber of priests, so that by the time of Philo and Josephus there were
probably very few priests left in the order. The cessation of animal
sacrifice would necessarily follow; meanwhile the sacred meal had
become the principal liturgical act of the community.
More than one scholar has called attention to the fact that noth¬
ing is said of the teacher of righteousness or the new covenant
in the descriptions of the Esscnes. The whole idea of the covenant,
as a matter of fact, is conspicuous by its absence in what we are
told about the Esscnes. The reason for this may be that the ac¬
counts of Jewish practices and ideas given by Philo and Josephus
were intended for gentile readers; consequently they minimized
everything peculiar to Judaism, while emphasizing and exaggerat¬
ing every resemblance to Greek and Roman ways of thinking.
Nowhere are the contacts between these sects more notable than
in the area of moral and social practices. According to Philo, the
Essenes were much more interested in ethics than in logic or meta¬
physics and devoted themselves assiduously to moral philosophy
under the guidance of the divinely inspired laws of their country.
This statement is a notable example of Philo’s effort to be a Greek
to the Greeks. It is an attempt to express in terms of Greek philos¬
ophy the devotion of the Essenes to the laws of Moses and their
own sectarian regulations. So understood, it might serve as a de¬
scription of the attitudes and interests manifest in the Manual of
Discipline and the Damascus Document.
Both Philo and Josephus pay tribute to the high reputation of
the Essenes for sanctity. They were a strictly ascetic group, putting
great stress on the control of bodily appetites and passions. In the
Manual of Discipline also much emphasis is placed on self-control
and a serious demeanor. Humility, patience, simplicity, obedience,
fidelity, and purity are among the virtues most highly prized by
covenanters and Essenes alike.
Josephus mentions the great attachment of the Essenes to one
another, and Philo speaks of their extraordinary spirit of equality
and fellowship. This spirit of unity within the order, as often in
Identification 289
other religious groups, was accompanied and perhaps intensified
by a bitter intolerance toward all outsiders. Hippolytus says that
if the Essenes even touched a member of any other sect they im¬
mediately washed themselves. One is reminded of the obligation
to love all the sons of light and to hate all the sons of darkness
imposed by the Manual of Discipline on those who entered the
covenant.
The ideal of equality found expression among the Essenes in the
repudiation of slavery. Philo says that they considered slavery a
disturbance of the order of nature by covetousness. Josephus says
that they regarded keeping servants as a temptation to injustice.
Both authors speak of the way the Essenes ministered to one an¬
other's needs. The evidence on this point in the Dead Sea Scrolls is
purely negative. Slavery, like marriage, seems to be simply ig¬
nored.
In all these particulars, without being able to point to specific
parallels, one may note a general correspondence to the over-all
impression given by the Dead Sea Scrolls. At least there are no
striking contradictions. The same may be said with regard to the
economic life of the Essenes and the covenanters. According to
both Philo and Josephus, the Essenes lived primarily by agricul¬
ture. They avoided commercial dealings of all kinds, Philo says,
because these gave rise to covetousness. The covenanters must
have been farmers too, though one cannot but wonder what kind
of agriculture was possible in the desolate vicinity of Khirbet Qum-
ran. Philo adds that other peaceful occupations were cultivated by
the Essenes. Animal husbandry, the keeping of bees, and various
useful arts and crafts were practiced to keep the community sup¬
plied with the necessities of life. By all these means the Essenes
managed to satisfy their frugal desires so successfully, Philo would
have us believe, that they were generally and rightly considered
rich, although they had no stores of silver and gold or extensive
holdings of land.
Among the covenanters we have found the practice of having all
things in common, though the Damascus Document reflects a less
radical form of this institution than the Manual of Discipline. All *
290 The Dead Sea Scrolls
authorities agree that the Essenes practiced the community of
goods. Pliny says simply that they were “without money ” Josephus
says that they held everything in common, so that the rich enjoyed
no more of their wealth than the utterly destitute. This is a some¬
what puzzling statement, because it seems to imply that there were
still rich and poor members; but perhaps Josephus refers only
to those who had formerly been rich or poor. Philo has much to say
on this subject. Housing, supplies, expenses, clothing, wages, flocks
and herds—all, he says, belonged to the whole community and
were equally available to every member. The aged and the sick
were as well cared for as if they had had large families to look after
them.
Philo’s statement that the members received wages but put them
into a common fund recalls the provision of the Damascus Docu¬
ment that a fixed portion of each man’s wages must be given to
the superintendent. According to Hippolytus, every man, on enter¬
ing the Essene order, had to sell his property and turn over the
receipts to the “ruler." The Manual of Discipline speaks of bring¬
ing one's wealth into the order together with one’s strength and
knowledge. In this connection de Vaux makes the interesting ob¬
servation that hundreds of coins have been found in the excavation
of Khirbet Qumran, but none in any of the caves. He infers from
this fact that all transactions involving money were centralized at
the headquarters of the community, and the individual members
did not handle money.
To many scholars the similarity at this point has seemed to be
a striking confirmation of their belief that the Essenes and the
covenanters were the same. Others find sufficient differences to
convince them—or to confirm their belief—that two different sects
are represented. A. Rubinstein suggests that much of the tradition
embodied in the. Damascus Document was derived from the Es¬
senes, but that the Essenism of the Damascus covenanters was
decadent. Certainly we must recognize the possibility that differ¬
ences in time, or variations between different branches of the same
sect, may at least partially explain the apparent discrepancies.
Even more surprising to their contemporaries than the commu-
Identification 29 1
nity of goods was the Essenes’ abstention from marriage. Pliny says
that they lived “without any women, having renounced all sexual
relations.” Nevertheless, he ad'ds with wonder, “day by day the
multitude joining them of its own accord is regularly renewed,
since many flock together whom, wearied with life, fortune by
its storms drives to their way of living. Thus through thousands
of ages, incredible to relate, a people in which no one is bom is
eternal, so fruitful to them is the repentance of others!”
Our other sources also dwell at some length on this strange fea¬
ture of the Essene sect. Josephus says that they renounced mar¬
riage but adopted young children and brought them up according
to the principles of the sect, not because they condemned marriage
and the propagation of the race on principle, but because they had
no confidence in the faithfulness of women. Philo takes advantage
of this peculiarity of the Essenes to expound at length his own low
estimate of female character. The Essenes do not marry, he says,
because women are selfish, jealous, and hypocritical; if they have
children, they become proud, bold, and even violent. A man bound
by natural affection to a woman and children, Philo concludes, is
no longer a free man but a slave.
Whether or not this was the view of the main body of Essenes,
certainly not all of them agreed with Philo. There was one branch
of the sect, Josephus tells us, that shared the ideas and customs of
the rest in other matters, but regarded the renunciation of marriage
as a crime equivalent to murder. They subjected their wives to
three years of probation, he continues, and required them to
bathe and wear linen garments as the men did.
In our sources for the covenanters we have found some diver¬
gence with regard to marriage. The Manual of Discipline makes no
reference at all to women and children, but their presence in the
community is clearly attested by the Damascus Document and the
Palestine Museum’s “two columns.” As Brownlee remarks, if the
covenanters were Essenes at all, those at least of whom the Da¬
mascus Document and the two columns tell were of the marrying
kind.
Perhaps the most conspicuous apparent divergence between the
392 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Essenes and the covenanters is in their attitudes toward war. Philo
particularly emphasizes the peaceful pursuits and concerns of the
Essenes. None of them, he says, engaged in any occupation con¬
nected with war or liable to be exploited for military purposes.
The community depicted in the Manual of Discipline and the
Habakkuk Commentary seems peaceful enough, but a military or¬
ganization and active warfare are presupposed by the “two col¬
umns," and the War of the Sons of Light with the Sons of Darkness,
even if we suppose that the warfare of which it speaks is the
eschatological struggle between the hosts of good and evil, breathes
a militant spirit that would have satisfied the Maccabees or the
Zealots.
As a matter of fact, even for the Essenes the testimony of our
sources is not entirely unambiguous. Josephus speaks of at least
one Essene who was a warrior and lauds the heroism of the Essenes
in the war against the Romans. Hippolytus even says that some
people called the Essenes Zealots and others called them Sicarii,
because they killed any uncircumcised man who talked about
God and the law. The identification of the Essenes with those ex¬
treme proponents of armed revolt against Rome known as Zealots
and Sicarii renders this whole statement suspect, but it may ac¬
curately reflect some military activity on the part of Essenes. It
is possible also that the attitudes of the Essenes and covenanters
changed with changing circumstances.
Before we try to reach a general conclusion a few other points of
similarity or difference may be mentioned. The Essenes are said
to have renounced the use of oaths, except for the oath of initiation.
There is no evidence of such an attitude among the covenanters,
unless it is implied by a passage in the Damascus Document, where,
as Brownlee points out, it is forbidden to swear “except the oath
written in the oaths of the covenant."
Among the reasons adduced by Gottstein for believing that the
covenanters and the Essenes were not the same is the fact that
the order of the Essenes was of the type in which membership is
permanent, whereas the sect of Qumran, he contends, belonged
to the type in which a periodic rebirth is necessary. As evidence of
Identification 2 93
this he cites the passage in the Manual of Discipline whid, de¬
scribes the annual ceremony of renewing the
is quite a different tiling fft>m a periodic spiritual rebirth of in
“"terns of practice and belief included in the accormts of
the Essenes have not appeared in the Dead Sea, Scr0 ^.^ ut **
•argument from silence" in such cases proves rvcthmg^ An.de from
the possibility of error in the statements concerning d.e Essenes
i, must be remembered that the Qumran scrolls and ragmens
represent only a par, of the community's library
appear when all die fragments have been demphered reman* to
be *en. What may have been contained in the rest books
that are only partially preserved, to say nothing of those that
have not survived at all, cannot even be imagined
But if *e gaps in our knowledge and even the discrepandes do
not disprove the identity of Essenes and oovenanters me the
points of correspondence sufficiently close to estabhsh.t? Severd
scholars have contended that what the Essenes and the sect of
Qumran have in common is equally characteristic of other Jewish
lups. If there is to be any identification of Essenes and cove¬
nanters, it can hardly be more than an identification of a
type of Essene with a particular group of covenanters. The term
Essene does no, necessarily indicate a single organization witha
sharply definable set of beliefs and practices; it may des.gnate
rather a number of groups that were similar but no, identical To¬
gether with variations between different groups of the same period,
we must reckon with changes from one period to another.
That being so, the possibility of some kind of historical connec
We have seen that the covenanters were not identical with the
Pharisees, but it does not follow that they were entirely unrelated
to the Pharisees. An important suggestion in ,his r “P e ^ b ^ b ^
made by R. Marcus. He considers the legal tradition of the Da¬
mascus Document essentially that of the Pharisees; consequently
he argues that if the Damascus and Qumran covenanters and the
Essenes were all the same sect, they were a branch of the Pharisees.
294 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Recalling L. Ginzbergs demonstration of the existence of a con¬
servative and a liberal wing in Pharisaism, Marcus concludes that
the Essenes formed a third division, the left-wing Pharisees. Thus
we get a new classification of the parties in first-century Palestinian
Judaism: on the extreme right were the Sadducees and on the
extreme left the Zealots; between them were the three groups of
Pharisees, with the Essenes or covenanters standing next to the
Zealots. Some such alignment seems quite plausible if the identifi¬
cation of the Essenes and the Qumran covenanters is assumed.
The general conclusion that must be drawn at this stage of in¬
vestigation seems to me quite clear, and I do not believe that any
more specific conclusion is justified. If several related sects are
included under the term Essene, the covenanters may be called
Essenes; if by Essene we mean a particular sect, which we assume
to be accurately described by the ancient writers, then the cove¬
nanters were not Essenes. For the present it seems to me best not
to speak of the Qumran sect as Essenes, but rather to say that the
Essenes and the covenanters, with other groups of which we know
little or nothing, represented the same general type. It is more im¬
portant to define the extent of agreement and difference than it
is to accept or reject a particular name.
A few other identifications that have been proposed for the
covenanters should be at least mentioned. Josephus speaks of a
“Zadok the Pharisee” who was associated with Judas of Galilee in
the rebellion against the Romans in 6 a.d. Zadok and Judas, he
says, founded the "fourth philosophy” of the Jews, whose ad¬
herents agreed on the whole with the Pharisees but fanatically
insisted on freedom from any human ruler and cheerfully endured
death rather than recognize any man as their lord. Judas the Gali¬
lean is believed by many historians to have been the founder of '
the group known as Zealots, though Josephus uses this term only
for those who fought against Rome sixty years later.
The community of the Dead Sea Scrolls has actually been identi¬
fied by an eminent historian with the most violent of the Zealots,
the Sicarii. It will be remembered that Hippolytus connected the
Zealots and Sicarii with the Essenes. This identification carries
r
Identification ^95
with it so many quite incredible implications that it need not be
discussed here in any detail, but it is true that there are rather
impressive points of contact between the covenanters and the
followers of Judas and Zadok. Possibly some members of the com¬
munity joined the Zealots in the last decades before the destruc¬
tion of the temple. Any closer connection than that, however, can
hardly be postulated. The community of the Dead Sea Scrolls was
quite certainly much older than the movement inaugurated by
Zadok and Judas. _ . ,
After die account of the followers of Zadok and Boethus, which
was mentioned above in connection with the Sadducees, al-
Qirqisani continues: “Thereupon appeared the teaching of a sect
called Magharians; they were called so because their books were
found in a cave” (the Arabic word for cave being magharah ). This
statement is followed by one concerning Jesus; the Magharians
may therefore have appeared shortly before the Christian era.
Barth 61 emy and de Vaux have suggested that the Magharians
may have been the Qumran covenanters. It is quite possible as
Kahle says, that the Magharians were actually Essenes, and that
they were given the name Magharian by later writers because their
books had been found in a cave and their real identity was un-
KllUWil. ,
The bare possibility of suggesting that the covenanters, the
Zadokites, the Essenes, the Zealots, and the Magharians were all
one and the same group makes all the more pertinent the warn¬
ings of Lieberman and others against identifying the Qumran com¬
munity with any known sect in Judaism. In spite of obvious simi¬
larities and obscure possibilities of some kind of relationship, the
sect or sects of the Damascus Document and the Dead Sea Scrolls
may have been distinct from any that have been mentioned.
Still other identifications have been seriously proposed and must
not be ignored. Teicher, for example, argues vigorously that the
community of the Dead Sea Scrolls was the early Jewish-Chnstian
sect called Ebionites. For many reasons this theory is untenable.
It is developed with extraordinary industry and erudition, but it
is impossible on chronological grounds, if for no other reason.
296 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Teicher recognizes that the texts presuppose a well-developed,
organized sect, and concludes that their composition must there¬
fore be dated considerably later than 70 a jd. Since the archeologi¬
cal evidence makes 70 a . d . the last possible date for the copying
of the latest manuscripts, and the paleography compels us to date
the oldest of the manuscripts much earlier than that, no further
refutation of Teicher’s theory is necessary.
This does not mean that there was no connection at all between
the covenanters and the Ebionites. The possibility of such a con¬
nection has been explored by Oscar Cullmann. In particular he
has investigated the contacts between the Quraran texts and the
early Christian documents known as the pseudo-Clementine writ¬
ings, which are believed to be of Ebionite origin. In spite of differ¬
ences at a number of points, he finds in these two groups of texts
the same theology, the same ritual practices, and the same pre¬
scribed ways of living. Taken separately, the parallels would not
necessarily indicate that the covenanters and the Ebionites were
directly related, but the mass of them makes this seem probable.
The only essential difference is that the priesthood, which is held
in high honor by the covenanters, is radically rejected by the
Ebionites. Identifying the covenanters with the Essenes, Cullman
finds that the opposition to the temple and its sacrifices that is
apparent among the Essenes has become much sharper in the
pseudo-Clementine writings. The Ebionites have also a critical
attitude toward the Old Testament, which is lacking among the
Essenes.
The relationship is too close, Cullman feels, to be explained by
supposing that the Ebionites merely preserved features of primi¬
tive Christianity that had been derived originally from sectarian
Judaism. A later, more direct Essene influence upon the Jewish
Christians must be assumed. The Qumran community was de¬
stroyed during the war with Rome in 66-70 a . d ., and it was at
this time that the Jewish Christians left Jerusalem and withdrew
across the Jordan. Cullmann concludes that the remnant of the
Qumran sect must have joined these Jewish Christians. Both the re¬
semblances and the differences, he m aintain.^ can be understood
Identification
as the result of this fusion. Pending further investigation of de¬
tails, this hypothesis seems not at all improbable. In any case
Teichers theory that the sect of Qumran and the Ebiomtes were
the same cannot be accepted. .
Still more decisively than the Ebionites, the Kararte sect is ex¬
cluded by archeological evidence from being given credit for toe
Dead Sea Scrolls. The Karaite movement arose m the early'Middle
Ages in the eastern part of the Arab empire. It rejected the tradi¬
tional interpretations built up by the rabbis and acknowledged
only the authority of the Scriptures. Zeitlin and others have pointed
out many interesting and impressive contacts between Ae prac¬
tices and beliefs of the Karaites and those that appear in the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the Damascus Document. WhUe it is impossible
that the medieval Karaites could have produced the Dead Sea
Scrolls, the parallels with Karaite literature which Zeitlin and Weis
have pointed out must have some significance. The Old Cairo
genizah in which the medieval manuscripts of the Damascus Docu¬
ment were found had probably belonged originally to a Karaite
synagogue, and these particular manuscripts were probably made
by Karaites. , _ „ _ ._
Kahle suggests that Benjamin al-Nihawandi, a tending; p ««an
Karaite of the ninth century ajx, was acquainted with the books
of the Magharians found in the cave near Jericho, and that those
stimulated him to develop Karaite theology on a new bas^The
manuscripts of the Damascus Document found in the Old Cairo
genizah, Kahle believes, were copies of older scrolls found in
the same cave at that time. Instead of supposing that the Damas¬
cus Document was composed under Karaite influence, therefore,
Kahle maintains that the Karaites were influenced by the Damas¬
cus Document and the other scrolls found in the cave near Jericho
at about 800 a.d. ... .
Teicher agrees with Kahle on this point. He recalls the fact that
in the ninth and tenth centuries there was a controversy between
the Karaites and the "Rabbanites," the adherents of the rabbinic
traditions. Quoting a Karaite writer to the effect that Zadokite
books were widely known at this time, he reminds us that this was
298 The Dead Sea Scrolls
also the time when the manuscripts of the Damascus Document
found in the Old Cairo gcnizah were made. The Rabbanites as
well as the Karaites in the tenth century adopted practices alien
to Talmudic law, Teicher says, and he suggests that both derived
their new practices from Zadokite writings that had become known
to both groups at about the same time.
If Kahle and Teicher are right, the affinities between the Dead
Sea Scrolls and medieval Karaite literature are to be attributed to
the influence of the manuscripts found near Jericho at the begin¬
ning of the ninth century. At first sight this theory seems romantic
and far-fetched, but it is not impossible. Some kind of historical
connection between the Karaites and the sect of Qumran must be
recognized, and this hypothesis is as credible as any explanation
that has been offered. Support for it may be seen in the fact that
bits of the Damascus Document have now been found in the Qum¬
ran caves.
To sum up the net result of all the efforts to identify the cove¬
nanters, we must first of all insist that any identification must ob¬
serve the chronological limits set by the established age of the
documents. The sect of the teacher of righteousness and his fol¬
lowers was clearly one of the groups formed within Judaism dur¬
ing the pre-Maccabean and Hasmonean periods. It may probably
be accurately included under the term Hasidim, but that does not
indicate a specific sect. In many ways it was akin to the Essenes,
as we know them from sources of the Roman period. If this term
is used in a broad, comprehensive sense, we may legitimately call
the Qumran sectarians Essenes. For the present, however, in order
not to prejudge the case, it seems better to reserve that name for
the group described by Philo and Josephus, which, if their reports
are accurate, was not exactly identical or coextensive with the
Qumran community. As a matter of convenience we may still
designate the latter by the term “covenanters," which implies
neither the acceptance nor the rejection of their identification
with the Essenes. At any rate, it is clear that the sect of Qumran
was more closely related to the Essenes than to any other group
known to us.
XIV
Contributions to Textual Criticism,
Historical Grammar, and Paleography
tjTjTTLrirLrinJTruajTjm
Our consideration of the Dead Sea Scrolls would be quite incom¬
plete if we failed to ask what difference they make for scholarship
and for religion. Everything thus far has been merely preparing the
way for the consideration of that ultimate question. Since many of
the scrolls and fragments contain portions of books of the Bible,
and since they are much older than any other extant Hebrew manu-
script of the Old Testament, one of the first questions to be raised
is what they contribute to the textual criticism of the Old Testa¬
ment.
The task of textual criticism is to detect and eliminate errors
in the text as it has come down to us, and so to restore, as nearly
as possible, what was originally written by the authors of the
books. The means available for this purpose are of three kinds.
The first and most important is the comparison of different manu¬
scripts.
This is not possible for the Old Testament as it is for the New
Testament. We have an abundance of New Testament manu¬
scripts, which differ very widely in the wording of the text at many
points. It is possible to compare them, arrange them m families
according to their agreements and differences, and so construct a
family tree of the divergent types of text. Moving down the spread-
301
302 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ing branches to the trunk, so to speak, we come to the oldest form
of text represented by the extant manuscripts.
With the Old Testament this can be done only to a very limited
degree. For a thousand years or more it was the regular practice
of the Jews to copy the text with meticulous accuracy and correct
it very carefully according to the official or Masoretic text. Old,
wom-out manuscripts were discarded and relegated to the gemzah.
The result is that no Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament
older than the ninth century a.d. have been preserved, and all the
surviving manuscripts agree almost exactly, except in very minute
details.
In the Old Testament, therefore, scholars must depend veiy
largely on the second available means of reconstructing an older
form of the text. This is the comparison of the Hebrew manuscripts
with the ancient versions, the translations into Greek, Aramaic,
Syriac, Latin, and other languages. Having been made between
the third century b.c. and the fifth century a.d., these versions were
based on much older Hebrew manuscripts than those that have
survived to our time. They have to be used with much caution, of
course, because it is not always possible to be sure what Hebrew
words are represented by a phrase in a translation. At the same
time they afford a very valuable means of checking the accuracy
of the traditional Hebrew text and correcting its errors.
The third means of restoring the text must be used still more
cautiously and only as a last resort. It consists of what is called
“conjectural emendation.” This does not mean sheer guesswork
without any objective basis. By a knowledge of the language, by
comparison with parallel or similar passages, and sometimes by
comparison with other ancient texts outside of the Bible, one can
sometimes see that a word or group of words that has no intelli¬
gible meaning can, by a slight change of one or more letters, be
made to yield a meaning in accord with the context. At many
points in the Old Testament such conjectural emendation is the
only way to make any sense at all out of the text. This fact, how¬
ever, often tempts a scholar to exercise his ingenuity in making
Contributions to Criticism , Grammar , Paleography 303
quite unnecessary and unjustified changes in the text. The only
adequate protection against such unwarranted emendations is the
combined judgment of competent, conservative, and at the same
time open-minded scholars.
In this state of affairs the discovery of a biblical manuscript cen¬
turies older than the standard medieval manuscripts of the Old
Testament is an event of major importance for textual criticism.
Even though the subject is somewhat technical, therefore, we must
try to assess the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls in this respect.
The St. Mark’s manuscript of Isaiah is the only one of the scrolls
that contains a whole book of the Bible, and, with the exception
of some of the small fragments, it is the oldest of the manuscripts
found in the caves. We may therefore begin our discussion by
considering the importance of this manuscript for recovering the
correct Hebrew text of the book of Isaiah.
The age of the manuscript, of course, does not establish its im¬
portance. An old manuscript is not necessarily a good manuscript.
A copy made in the ninth or tenth century a.d. may more accu¬
rately reproduce the original text than one made in the first or
second century b.c. As a matter of plain fact, the St. Mark’s Isaiah
manuscript is obviously inferior at a great many points to the best
medieval manuscripts. This does not, however, deprive the ancient
scroll of all importance.
Many of the differences between the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and
the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart
from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with
the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a
manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the gen¬
eral accuracy of the traditional text. It does not, however, prove
that the latter is the original text of Isaiah. What it shows is that
any major changes that occurred in the transmission of the text
had already been made before the beginning of the Christian era.
In other words, a virtual standardization of the text had come about
more or less automatically two or three centuries before the Maso-
retes made it official. As Hempel puts it, the decisive history of the
304 The Dead Sea Scrolls
text of the Old Testament had already been completed by the time
of Jesus, not only in the books of the law, of which no jot or tittle
should be altered, but also in the books of the prophets.
The conspicuous differences in spelling and grammatical forms
between the St. Mark's manuscript and the Masoretic text makes
their substantial agreement in the words of the text all the more
remarkable. Considering how widely the earliest manuscripts of
the New Testament vary, how radically the ancient Greek ver¬
sions differ from the traditional Hebrew text, and what a long
time intervened between the Dead Sea Scrolls and tlxe oldest of
the medieval manuscripts, one might have expected a much larger
number of variant readings and a much wider degree of diver¬
gence. It is a matter for wonder that through something like a
thousand years the text underwent so little alteration. As I said
in my first article on the scroll, “Herein lies its chief importance,
supporting the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition."
This statement was sharply criticized by Paul Kahle. For him
the most significant fact about the scroll is that it has a large num¬
ber of real variant readings, which are elsewhere practically non¬
existent in Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament. The scroll
therefore shows us for the first time what Hebrew manuscripts of
the Bible were like before they had been made to conform to a
standardized text. I still feel that the amount of agreement with
the Masoretic text is the manuscript’s most significant feature, but,
having said that, I agree that the variants constitute its second
point of importance.
An idea of the nature of these variant readings may be given by
noting the points at which the Revised Standard Version of the Old
Testament has followed the St. Mark's manuscript. When the Old
Testament section of the Standard Bible Revision Committee was in
session at Northfield, Massachusetts, in the summer of 1948, a man
who was staying at the same hotel remarked one day, “You will
have to revise your translation of Isaiah all over again now, won’t
you?" This was not necessary, but of course the new evidence was
considered. I had then just returned from Palestine, having made
on the way home a list of the variant readings in the St. Mark's
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 305
manuscript. The committee had this before it while revising the
translation of Isaiah.
Thirteen readings in which the manuscript departs from the
traditional text were eventually adopted. In these places a mar¬
ginal note cites “One ancient Ms,” meaning the St. Mark’s Isaiah
scroll. A brief review will show that even in these thirteen places
the superiority of the manuscript’s reading is not always certain.
For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably
voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision
was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been re¬
tained.
In eight of the thirteen instances the reading of the scroll is
supported to some degree by the ancient versions. I give these in¬
stances first, and then those that are attested only by the St. Mark's
manuscript. To make the essence of the matter as clear as possible,
I refer only to the Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin versions,
which are the most important; I also assume, though this is de¬
cidedly an artificial simplification, that there is just one version
in each of these four languages. By far the most important of them
is the Greek version, commonly called the Septuagint.
In three cases the Greek version and two others lend more or
less support to the manuscript against the Masoretic text. I shall
quote the passages as they appear in the St. Mark’s scroll.
(1) Isaiah 60:19:
The sun shall be no more your light by day,
nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night.
The traditional text here omits the phrase “by night,” but it is at¬
tested by the Greek, Old Latin, and Aramaic versions as well as by
the St. Mark’s scroll.
(2) Isaiah 51:19:
These two things have befallen you—
who will condole with you?—
devastation and destruction, famine and sword;
who will comfort you?
306 The Dead Sea Scrolls
The Masoretic text reads in the last line, “how may I comfort
you?" The Greek, Syriac, and Latin versions agree with the scroll.
(3) Isaiah 14:4:
How the oppressor has ceased,
the insolent fury ceased!
Instead of “the insolent fury” previous translations read “the
golden city." This is merely a desperate effort to give a meaning
to a Hebrew word whose real meaning, if it has any, is unknown.
It does not occur anywhere else. The word that replaces it in the
Isaiah scroll differs from it only in having an r instead of a d. In
some forms of the Hebrew alphabet these two letters look much
alike and are often confused. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin in this
case do not have exactly the same reading as the scroll, but they
have other readings which to some degree seem to support it.
In one passage the Septuagint alone agrees with the scroll.
(4) Isaiah 45:2:
I will go before you
and level the mountains.
The traditional text reads “rough places" (literally “swellings")
instead of “mountains.” The difference in meaning is slight; the
only question is which reading was more probably that of the
original text.
Twice where the Greek agrees with the Masoretic text two or
three other versions support the scroll.
(5) Isaiah 56:12:
“Come," they say, “let us get wine,
let us fill ourselves with strong drink."
The traditional text reads, “let me get wine,” but the plural form
fits the context better. In this case the Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac
versions but not the Septuagint agree with the St. Mark’s manu¬
script.
(6) Isaiah 49:24:
Can the prey be taken from the mighty,
or the captives of a tyrant be rescued?
Contributions to Criticism , Grammar, Paleography 307
The Masoretic text reads here, “the captives of a righteous man,”
which makes no sense. Previous English translations tried to make
sense out of it by a free paraphrase, “the lawful captives." The
scroll is supported in this instance by the Syriac and Latin ver¬
sions.
Once the Latin alon6 agrees with the St. Mark's manuscript
(7) Isaiah 14:30:
but I will kill your root with famine,
and your remnant I will slay.
The traditional text, “he will slay,” does not fit the context. The
King James Version and the American Standard Version boldly
evade the difficulty by changing the verb to the passive, “shall
be slain." The reading of the scroll seems clearly superior, in spite
of the fact that only the Latin among the ancient versions sup¬
ports it. The fact that it seems superior does not prove, to be sure,
that it is original. Orlinsky argues that the Latin translator here and
elsewhere simply took liberties with the Hebrew text. That would
seem more likely if we did not have also the testimony of the St.
Mark’s manuscript, though of course the same rather obvious
correction could have been made independently in the scroll and
in the Latin version.
In one instance the Latin has partial support in the Syriac ver¬
sion.
(8) Isaiah 15:9:
For the waters of Dibon are full of blood;
yet will I bring upon Dibon even more.
The name of the city is given both times in the Masoretic text as
Dimon. No such city is mentioned anywhere else, but a city named
Dibon is well known. The Latin version reads Dibon in this verse,
and the Syriac reads Ribon, confusing d and r but supporting the
b instead of m. The St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll has the same reading
as the Latin.
In this case, however, Orlinsky’s critique is devastating. In agree¬
ment with eminent topographers, he denies that the place here
referred to is Dibon at all Its location is unknown, though it may
308 The Dead Sea Scrolls
be the city called Madmen in Jeremiah 48:2; in any case Dibon
has already been mentioned in the second verse of Isaiah 15, and
no other place is named twice in the chapter. A play on the name
Dimon and the Hebrew word for blood, dam, was probably in¬
tended by the prophet. If Dibon was the original reading and
was changed to Dimon, this was done twice. As a Parthian shot
Orlinsky quotes in a footnote my previous acknowledgment
that the readings of the Latin version and the scroll “may of
course be merely obvious and independent corrections.” I am
now inclined to think that they were.
The remaining five of the thirteen variants in the scroll that were
adopted in the Revised Standard Version have no support in any
of the ancient versions. In these cases the choice between the
Masoretic text and the scroll is governed only by intrinsic prob¬
ability, as indicated by the context
(9) Isaiah 3:24:
Instead of perfume there will be rottenness;
and instead of a girdle, a rope;
and instead of well-set hair, baldness;
and instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth;
instead of beauty, shame.
The last word is missing in the Masoretic text. The line reads in
the earlier English versions, “branding [or burning] instead of
beauty.” The Hebrew word translated “branding" or “burning"
is the first word in the line. It occurs nowhere else with any such
meaning; ordinarily it is a conjunction, meaning “for” or “that,"
or an adverb, meaning “surely” or the like. (The Revised Standard
Version, understanding it in the latter sense, simply leaves it un¬
translated.) If it is used in either of these ways here, however,
the line is incomplete:
for [or surely] instead of beauty—
The word “shame" in the St. Marks scroll completes the sentence.
(10) Isaiah 21:8:
Then he who saw cried:
“Upon a watchtower I stand, O Lord . .
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 309
Instead of “he who saw” the Masoretic text reads “a lion.” This has
always made trouble for translators. The King James Version
reads, "And he cried, A lion.” The Revised Version and the Ameri¬
can Standard Version say, "and he cried as a lion.” What a lion
would be doing here is hard to say, but the Hebrew words.for
"lion” and "he who saw” appear and sound somewhat alike. An
inattentive scribe might easily substitute one for the other.
(11) Isaiah 23:2:
Be still, O inhabitants of the coast,
O merchants of Sidon,
your messengers passed over the sea
and were on many waters.
The second and third lines of this verse read in the Masoretic text,
translated literally, “a merchant of Sidon passing over the sea
they replenished you.” The Hebrew for “they replenished you”
resembles quite closely the word in the St. Mark’s scroll meaning
"your messengers.” The choice between the two readings is a
matter of subjective judgment as to the appropriateness of one or
the other in the context, but the Masoretic reading has compelled
translators to render it rather freely.
(12) Isaiah 33:8:
Covenants are broken,
witnesses are despised.
Instead of “witnesses” the Masoretic text reads “cities.” This is
another case of the frequent confusion between d and r.
(13) Isaiah 45:8:
Shower, O heavens, from above,
and let the skies rain down righteousness;
let the earth open, that salvation may sprout forth. . . .
Where the scroll has “that salvation may sprout forth” the tradi¬
tional text reads “that they may bring forth salvation.” The dif¬
ference is not important; either reading is quite possible, and the
choice between them is hardly more than a matter of subjective
preference.
1
3 io The Dead Sea Scrolls
No reader will suppose that the adoption of these thirteen read¬
ings by the committee that made the Revised Standard Version
proves that in these instances and in these alone the St. Mark’s
Isaiah scroll is superior to the Masoretic text. Each variant was
discussed on its merits in the committee; the decision was taken
by vote, and the result was rarely unanimous. Other scholars and
some members of the committee would judge otherwise in some
cases. My own misgivings have already been expressed. It must
be said, however, that the choice of these readings expresses the
considered judgments of the majority of a representative group of
scholars.
Four of the thirteen variants we have considered are included
in a list of ten readings in the St. Mark’s manuscript noted by
Walter Baumgartner as preferable to the Masoretic readings. Of
the remaining six in his list, four were not adopted by the Revision
Committee, but two were incorporated in the translation without
any marginal note. It may be of some interest to note briefly the
main facts concerning these two readings.
The first is of no great importance. In Isaiah 7:1 the Masoretic
text says, “In the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, son of Uzziah,
king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of
Remaliah the king of Israel went up to Jerusalem for war against
it, but he could not conquer it." After the compound subject one
expects a plural form of the verb "could," and the Revised Standard
Version reads, “but they could not conquer it." This is the reading
of the St. Mark’s manuscript, the Septuagint, and the Latin and
Syriac versions; it is also the reading of the Masoretic text itself
in the parallel narrative of II Kings 16:5. Many scholars accord¬
ingly believed, long before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
that the original text of Isaiah had the plural form of the verb at
this point
The form in the Masoretic text, as a matter of fact, can be under¬
stood as an infinitive, used idiomatically to continue the narrative,
instead of a finite singular form. That is why the Revised Standard
Version translates it, without a note, as plural. Orlinsky argues,
however, that the verb here is in the singular, like “went up*
1
Contributions to Criticism , Grammar, Paleography 311
earlier in the verse and “has devised” in verse 5, because the king
of Syria took the initiative in the whole affair, and the king of
Israel merely followed him. This may be true, but the singular
form of “went up” and “has devised” is no evidence for it: a
singular verb is regularly used with a compound subject in He¬
brew when the verb comes first. The choice between the two read¬
ings in this case is almost a matter of splitting a hair. The dif¬
ference is significant only as an illustration of the kind of variant
readings we find in the manuscript.
The other instance of agreement with the scroll in the Revised
Standard Version, with no footnote, is more instructive. In Isaiah
49:17 the Masoretic text reads “your sons,” whereas the St. Mark’s
scroll reads, “your builders.” The latter reading makes better
sense in the context and has some support in the other versions.
In this case, however, the difference consists only in a vowel. The
same consonants can be read either way. The medieval vowel-
points of the Masoretic text give the meaning “sons”; the St
Mark’s manuscript, by inserting a vowel letter, gives the reading
“builders.” In all such cases, where preferred meanings are secured
by assuming different vowels without changing the consonantal
text, the Revised Standard Version has no footnotes.
The four variant readings listed by Baumgartner but not adopted
in the Revised Standard Version are unimportant, though one of
them comes up for consideration in another connection. Another
may be mentioned, because it has been rather enthusiastically ac¬
claimed by several scholars. In Isaiah 40:12, “Who has measured
the waters in the hollow of his hand,” some commentators have
long felt that a slight modification of the word "waters” so as to
make it mean "seas” gave a meaning more in accord with the con¬
text. The St. Mark’s manuscript, by merely splitting the word into
two (my ym instead of mym), makes it mean “waters of a sea.”
As Orlinsky points out, however, the definite article would nor¬
mally be used before the word "sea” in Hebrew as in English.
For some variant readings of the St. Mark’s manuscript that
are not supported by the ancient versions there is support of
other kinds. To Mr. E. E. Buttner of South Africa I am indebted
312 The Dead Sea Scrolls
for the information that in Isaiah 40:7-8 and 64:1 the readings of
the scroll agree with quotations of these texts by the second-
century church father Justin Martyr, and in the former instance
by Cyprian also. Wallenstein has pointed out that in 40:10 and
56:1 the scroll agrees with quotations by the early Jewish poet
Yannai. A quotation of Isaiah 52:8 in the Jewish Prayer Book, as
H. L. Ginsberg has shown, agrees with the St. Mark's manuscript
against both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. On other
grounds also, scholars have considered certain variants in the
scroll superior to the readings of the Masoretic text. Notscher gives
a list of sixteen Hebrew expressions in the Masoretic text of Isaiah
which occur nowhere else, and which he thinks the readings of
the scroll prove to be unnecessary and probably incorrect.
One variant not very striking in itself is interesting because
it agrees in part with a quotation of the text in the New Testament.
In Isaiah 7:14 the Masoretic text reads, "she shall call his name
Immanuel." The same consonants with other vowels would mean
"you shall call.” Where this verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 the
Greek reads literally “they shall call,” the meaning being imper¬
sonal and equivalent to a passive verb, "his name shall be called.”
The St. Mark’s scroll too has an impersonal form of the verb, but
in the singular, "one shall call,” or (as it may be pointed) a
passive form, "shall be called."
The corrections inserted in the manuscript at a number of
points have already been mentioned. For the history of the text
they deserve a special study by themselves. It is significant that
they are usually in the direction of conformity to the Masoretic
text. The question remains how many of the readings that were
corrected were merely copyists blunders, and how many were
genuine variants which the corrector altered to make them agree
with what he considered a better text A popular text like that of
this manuscript would be less subject to correction than a more
official text, and might therefore preserve ancient readings that
were eliminated from official texts.
In some places where the scroll is supported by the ancient
versions Barth&emy holds that the Masoretic reading is a de-
Contributions to Criticism , Grammar , Paleography 313
liberate modification in the interest of a particular group. An ex¬
ample is Isaiah 49:5, where the scroll and some of the versions
read, "and Israel shall be gathered to him,” while the Masoretic
text reads, "and Israel shall not be gathered.” The Hebrew for
“not” and “to him” are spelled differently but sound alike.
Barth 61 emy suggests that the reading "not” was introduced in
opposition to the Samaritans, who were identified with Israel by
the scribes who made the change. The reading "to him,” preserved
here by the ancient versions and by the St. Mark's manuscript, was
noted by the Masoretes as a marginal reading and was adopted
in the English Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard
Version of 1901. The reading "not” may have been originally a
mistake made by a scribe who was writing from dictation and not
paying close attention to the meaning of what he wrote.
Among the variants which Barth&emy believes to be ancient
readings, deliberately eliminated from the official text, there are
several which he calls Messianic variants, meaning that they
express the Messianic interest and beliefs of the Judean cove¬
nanters. If it is true that they have a Messianic significance, they
afford valuable evidence for the beliefs of the sect. We must still
ask, however, whether the official scribes altered the text to elimi¬
nate what they considered objectionable implications, or whether
the alteration was made by the covenanters to introduce their own
beliefs into the text. That the latter procedure would not have been
out of the question is shown by what was done with the text of
Habakkuk, as we may see presently, in the commentary. Barth6-
lemy considers it probable, however, that in some if not all of these
places the scroll preserves the original reading, which was altered
by the official scribes to eliminate objectionable doctrinal implica¬
tions. We cannot pause here to discuss each of these variants, but
anyone who carefully examines the passages in question will find
that the supposed Messianic implications are decidedly ques¬
tionable.
One reading cited by Barth61emy is somewhat more impressive
than the others and has been the object of very lively discussion
by several scholars. In Isaiah 52 : 14 . where the Masoretic text.
314 The Dead Sea Scrolls
translated literally, reads “marred more than a man was his ap¬
pearance," the St. Mark's scroll says—or seems to say—“I have
anointed more than a m a n his appearance.” Barthelemy takes
this strange statement to mean, “I have anointed him, so that his
appearance surpasses that of a man.” Notscher accepts this inter¬
pretation and points out that the form of the verb “was marred”
used in the Masoretic text does not occur anywhere else. Brownlee
also accepts Barthelemy s view at this point and argues strongly
for the interpretation of the word in the scroll as “I anointed.” This
is certainly die most obvious way to take it, but J. Rcider and Arie
Rubinstein have shown that it may be an unusual form of the
word meaning "marred," and the idea of anointing a person's
appearance seems intrinsically unlikely even for an “Essene"
scribe. Barth&emy's whole argument, to my mind, is unconvincing.
His theory is worth noting, however, because it calls attention to
the possibility that this unofficial, pre-Masoretic text may here
and there reflect the special interests and beliefs of the sect.
Much more might be added about the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll,
but what has been said may suffice to indicate its importance for
establishing the best possible text of the Old Testament. By and
large it confirms the antiquity and authenticity of the Masoretic
text. Where it departs from the traditional text, the latter is usually
preferable. In a significant number of variant readings, however,
some with and some without support in the versions and other
ancient witnesses, the manuscript gives very valuable help in
getting back of the Masoretic text to more ancient readings,
closer to the original words of the book. Both negatively and
positively all this is important for the history of the text
The other manuscript of Isaiah, which was bought from the
Bedouins by Sukenik and which I will therefore call the Hebrew
University’s Isaiah scroll, contains only a part of the text of Chap¬
ters 10-66, and even so many lines have been lost and there are
many gaps in what remains. Both in spelling and in wording this
manuscript is much closer than the St. Mark’s scroll to the Maso¬
retic text. It has many slight variants, some of which agree with
the St Mark’s scroll and some with the ancient versions, but they
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 315
consist almost entirely of little differences in spelling and gram¬
mar. If this is, as it seems to be, another popular text from the
time before the standardization of the consonantal text, the extent
of its agreement which the Masoretic text is all the more im¬
pressive.
Fragments of other manuscripts of Isaiah have been found in
the exploration and excavation of the caves. Professor James
Muilenburg has published a few fragments of Isaiah from Cave 4.
They are of about the same age as the Habakkuk Commentary and
the War scroll. Like the Hebrew University’s Isaiah scroll, they
agree closely with the Masoretic text. Nowhere do they agree
with the Septuagint when it differs from the Masoretic text.
Since the Habakkuk Commentary quotes the first two chapters
of the book of Habakkuk, it too has some importance for textual
criticism. Like the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll, it frequently differs
from the Masoretic text. Sometimes the difference is obviously
the result of a mistake in copying. In the quotation of Habakkuk
2:16, for example, one letter of the Hebrew word for “glory” has
been left out. There are many differences in spelling some of
which suggest writing “by ear.’’ Some mistakes seem to have been
caused by confusion between two similar letters in a previous copy.
Apart from mere differences in spelling, van der Ploeg finds
about fifty variant readings in the commentary. Most of these
have little or no importance. What appears to be a real variant
may in some cases be merely a mistake of copying or hearing. This
explanation must not be adopted too lighdy, however. In quoting
Habakkuk 1:11, for example, the commentary reads “and he
made” instead of "and he was guilty.” Since the ensuing comment
on the verses uses the word “guilty,” van der Ploeg thinks that
this variant may have been accidental; Elliger, however, and I
think rightly, considers the reading of the commentary superior
to that of the Masoretic text. It gives the mea n ing, “he made his
might his god,” whereas the Masoretic reading is at best obscure;
indeed, scholars had previously proposed an emendation of the
Hebrew word almost identical with the reading of the commentary.
In Habakkuk 1:17, where the Masoretic text reads “his net,”
316 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the commentary has “his sword,” so that instead of “he empties
his net” the meaning becomes “he bares his sword.” The reading
"his sword” is presupposed also in the comment which follows. It
has some slight support in the ancient versions, in fact, and scholars
have proposed it as an emendation of the text Elliger feels that
the reference to merciless slaughter at the end of the verse con¬
firms this reading.
One of the most interesting variants in the Habakkuk Com¬
mentary is attributed by van der Ploeg to mere confusion of
similar letters. In Habakkuk 2:5 the Masoretic text says, “Wine
is treacherous.” C. C. Torrey has made a strong case for the hy¬
pothesis that the original reading was, “Greece is treacherous.”
The Habakkuk Commentary has a third reading, “Wealth is
treacherous.”
In Hebrew the word for wine is hyyn, the word for Greece is
hywn (using the definite article in both cases), while the word for
wealth (without the definite article) is hwn. The reading “wealth”
may obviously be merely a mistake in copying; the change in
meaning, however, has some connection with the severe con¬
demnation of wealth by the Qumran covenanters. Either a de¬
liberate change from “wine” to “wealth” or an unconscious as¬
sumption that this was the correct reading would express the
feeling of the group that, bad as wine might be, wealth was
worse.
Each of these readings, no doubt, expresses a truth. Wine and
wealth are both treacherous, and in ancient times there were
those who mistrusted the Greeks. Not far from the time when the
Habakkuk Commentary was written the Roman poet Vergil made
Laocoon say at Troy, as he hurled his spear at the wooden horse,
“I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts.” What Habakkuk
himself wrote or said, of course, is another question. There is no
adequate reason to suppose that it was "wealth.”
A choice between the two letters most frequently confused in
Hebrew manuscripts, d and r, is involved in the reading of the
commentary on Habakkuk 2:15—“gaze on their feasts” instead of
“gaze on their nakedness.” Here again the variant reading is pre-
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 317
supposed by the interpretation which follows. Perhaps it was
already present in the manuscript of Habakkuk used by the author
of the commentary; or perhaps that manuscript was written in
a script that did not clearly distinguish d and r. In the latter case
the significance of the event the commentator saw reflected in the
text may have caused him unconsciously to read “feasts" instead
of “nakedness.” It is also within the bounds of possibility, how¬
ever, that he made the change deliberately to produce the mean¬
ing he desired. There is surely no sufficient evidence to make it
probable that the Masoretic reading “nakedness" should be
changed to "feasts."
For a few of its variants the commentary has some support in
the ancient versions. The addition of “and" before “he drags
them” in Habakkuk 1:15 is not important, but it is worth noting
as a case of agreement with the Septuagint against the Masoretic
text In 1:17 the Masoretic text begins with an interrogative
particle. The versions, with the exception of the Targum, do not
indicate a question, and many modem scholars have accordingly
emended the text so as to read an affirmative statement. The
Habakkuk Commentary omits the interrogative particle. Minor
departures from the traditional text at other points have at least
partial support in the versions.
In Habakkuk 2:16 there is a variant which supports a very
simple emendation favored by many modem scholars, with con¬
siderable support in the versions. Where the Masoretic text reads,
“Drink and be uncircumcised,” the commentary has, “Drink and
stagger." The two Hebrew verbs differ only in the order of two
consonants. The comment on the verse contains a word from the
same root as “be uncircumcised," suggesting that in this case the
commentator based his interpretation on the Masoretic reading.
One might suppose that a copyist had made a mistake, either in
this manuscript or in a previous copy made after the composition
of the commentary; but the appropriateness of the variant in the
context and the support which it has in the versions indicate a more
substantial basis. It may be the Masoretic reading, therefore,
which is the result of a mistake in copying.
318 The Dead Sea Scrolls
In the familiar words of Habakkuk 2:3, “For the vision is yet
for the appointed time," the commentary supports the Masoretic
text against an emendation strongly urged by some modem
scholars. H. L. Ginsberg, for instance, maintains that instead of
the adverb "yet” the original text read the noun “witness.” The
sentence would then mean, “For the vision is a witness to the
appointed time" (i.e., evidence of the ordained consummation).
In a consonantal text, with no indication of vowels, the two He¬
brew words would be the same. The Habakkuk Commentary,
however, by inserting a vowel letter, unmistakably supports the
Masoretic reading, “yet.” This does not prove, of course, that the
original reading was not “witness.” It proves merely that the
mistake, if it was such, was an ancient one.
From all these variant readings van der Ploeg concludes that
the commentary represents a tradition quite different from any
attested by the versions or the Masoretic text. With such ex¬
ceptions as we have noted, the versions support the Masoretic text
where the commentary differs from it. Like the two scrolls of
Isaiah, the Habakkuk Commentary preserves a popular form of
the text. Elliger, after a painstaking examination of the variants,
concludes that the commentary has very little value for restoring
a more correct text. In general it merely shows how old and rel¬
atively reliable the Masoretic text is. The chief difficulties in the
text of Habakkuk remain, being the result of corruption of the
text before the time when the commentary was written.
For the remaining books of the Bible no extensive scrolls com¬
parable to those found in 1947 have been discovered, but in the
almost innumerable fragments found in the caves almost every
book of the Old Testament is represented. Even if only a small
portion of a book is preserved, it may give significant evidence
concerning the text. Frank M. Cross, Jr., points out that the large
quantity of fragments from the caves makes possible a sampling
of different textual types. The fact that so many of the books are
represented provides a cross section of the whole Old Testament,
which in some ways is more important for textual criticism than
complete manuscripts of only two or three books.
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 319
Among the fragments found in the first cave, perhaps during
the illicit operation of 1948, there were some from the book of
Daniel, including the place in the second chapter where the lan¬
guage suddenly changes from Hebrew to Aramaic. This change
appears in the ancient manuscript exactly as it is in the standard
text. The fragments of Leviticus in the old Hebrew script which
were found in the first cave in 1949 gave us, as Bimbaum re¬
marked, our oldest witness to the text of any part of the Bible. It
is therefore significant that they agree almost entirely with the
Masoretic text of Leviticus.
The most astonishing quantity of fragments came from Cave 4
James Muilenburg has published the fragments of a beautifully
written scroll of Ecclesiastes. This scroll, which was written about
150 b.c., seems to have differed from the Masoretic text to about
the same degree and in much the same ways as the St. Mark's
Isaiah scroll, with which it is approximately contemporary. Other
fragments from this cave, however, present quite a different
picture. Monsignor Patrick W. Skehan, working on the fragments
from Cave 4 at the Palestine Museum, found one containing a
tiny bit of the eighth verse of Deuteronomy 32 with the first evi¬
dence of any ancient Hebrew manuscript of the reading, “accord¬
ing to the number of the sons of God," where the Masoretic text
has “sons of Israel." On the basis of the Septuagint, which reads
“angels of God,” scholars have long believed that the original
text was “sons of God," and this is the reading adopted by the
Revised Standard Version. Another fragment contained enough
of the ending of the same chapter to show the astonishing fact
that the text was arranged in metrical lines, as are also some frag¬
ments of the Psalms. In this fragment also there are readings that
agree with the Septuagint as against the Masoretic text.
A bit of the text of I Samuel found in the fourth cave has been
published by F. M. Cross. No less than twenty-seven fragments,
when pieced together, were found to form a portion of two columns
of manuscript containing part of the text of I Samuel 1:22-2:6 and
2:16-25. The script indicates a date in the first century b.c. The
text represents the same general tradition as that which was the
320 The Dead Sea Scrolls
basis of the Septuagint in I Samuel. This enhances the importance
of the Septuagint for the reconstruction of the Hebrew text of
Samuel. Not only so; the fragments demonstrate the importance of
a particular group of Septuagint manuscripts, the chief repre¬
sentative of which is the Codex Vaticanus. Fragments of other
manuscripts of Samuel attest other textual traditions. As Cross
writes, “Thus for the first time, really, we are introduced to an Old
Testament text in a state of relative fluidity.”
The fragments from Cave 4 are clearly the remains of manu¬
scripts made before the effort to standardize the text had gone
very far, though the text of the Pentateuch and perhaps that of
the book of Isaiah may have been fixed relatively early. The
process of standardization went through its most decisive phase
within a century and a half after the abandonment of the Qumran
caves, but it is clear that the rabbis of the second and subsequent
centuries did not inaugurate the process. Their work evidently
rested on ancient traditions, and the text they adopted as au¬
thoritative was one that had already been standardized to a con¬
siderable degree.
Later texts from the caves of the Wady Murabbaat illuminate
the history of the Septuagint. This, however, involves problems
with which only specialists in that field can deal competently. It
also takes us beyond the area of our present concern, the manu¬
scripts of the Qumran community.
What has been said may be enough to indicate the importance
of the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments for the technical study of
the text of the Old Testament. The general reader and student of
the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this changes
our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible. We did
not need the Dead Sea Scrolls to show us that the text has not
come down to us through the centuries unchanged. Interpretations
depending upon the exact words of a verse must be examined
in the light of all we know about the history of the text. The
essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however,
have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the
transmission of the text. Even when mistaken interpretations were
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 321
propounded, as in the commentary on Habakkuk and the frag¬
ments of other commentaries, only slight changes in minor detail*
were made in the text itself.
Since these manuscripts are much older than any previously
known, it is reasonable to ask whether they throw any light not
only on the wording of the text but on the composition of the
books of the Old Testament. Many people have asked, for ex¬
ample, whether the Isaiah scrolls contain anything bearing on
the distinction between the work of the prophet Isaiah, who lived
in the eighth century b.c., and a "Second Isaiah” of the sixth
century or later. We could not reasonably expect, however, to find
evidence of this sort. It is rather interesting, to be sure, that the
division between the two halves of the St. Mark’s manuscript, in
which Kahle finds two different forms of the Hebrew text, comes
just at the end of chapter 33; because in style and ideas chapters
34 and 35 clearly belong with chapters 40-66 rather than with
chapters 1-33. (Chapters 36-39, of course, are quoted from II
Kings.)
Whatever significance this division of the manuscript may
have, however, no conclusion can be drawn from it concerning
the composition of the book. The book of Isaiah had attained its
present form long before the St. Mark’s manuscript was written.
There have been critics, it is true, who dated sections of the book
as late as the Maccabean period. The St. Mark’s manuscript is not
quite old enough to make even that impossible. What its date and
contents definitely prove is that the book of Isaiah was complete,
with all its parts in their present order, by the end of the second
century b.c.
Concerning the composition of the book of Habakkuk, it is of
some interest to note that the Habakkuk Commentary omits the
third chapter. The fact that the last column has only four lines
of writing shows that the end of the commentary has been reached.
Many scholars have long believed that the third chapter was not a
part of the original book of Habakkuk. Its absence from the scroll
is consistent with this theory but does not prove it. It does not
even prove that the third chapter was unknown to the Jude an
3*2 The Dead Sea Scrolls
covenanters. Being a psalm, it does not lend itself to such use as is
made of the other chapters. It is even possible that the commentaiy
was never finished. The Septuagint has all three chapters, but
whether this particular part of the Septuagint is older than the
Habakkuk Commentary is another question.
Indirect evidence concerning the antiquity of the psalms of
the Old Testament has been seen in the differences in language,
spirit, and theology between them and the Thanksgiving Psalms
of the Dead. Sea Scrolls. Aside from such general indications, the
Dead Sea texts could hardly be expected to tell us anything about
the composition of the Old Testament books. More light might
be expected, perhaps, on the formation of the canon. That ques¬
tion we have already considered in connection with the theology
of the Qumran covenanters. It cannot be said that much has been
added yet to our knowledge of the subject.
Of less general interest but important for scholars is the material
provided by the scrolls and fragments for the history of the He¬
brew language. Their peculiarities of spelling have come to our
attention in several connections. Some of these may indicate
mere personal idiosyncrasies or sheer ignorance; at any rate, it is
clear that Hebrew orthography was in a fluid state when the
scrolls were written. The spelling of the scrolls is certainly not
older than that of the Masoretes. The relative scarcity of vowel
letters in the Masoretic text, for example, corresponds to a much
more ancient practice than the lavish use of them in the Dead Sea
, Stolls. The Masoretes either retained the orthography found in
their oldest manuscripts or deliberately returned to an ancient
type of spelling.
The Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit transitional phases in the develop¬
ment of Hebrew orthography. Perhaps the most important fact
to note in this connection is that the scrolls carry farther tendencies
already evident in the latest books of the Hebrew Old Testament,
especially I-II Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, where the
Masoretes did not so thoroughly restore the older spelling as they
did in the law and the prophets.
The full and rather eccentric spelling of the scrolls is not merely
Contributions to Criticism, Grammar, Paleography 323
a subject for study by itself; it shows also how Hebrew was pro¬
nounced at the time when the manuscripts were copied. Aside
from such features as may reflect only a local or even a sectarian
dialect, the scrolls and fragments represent stages in the history
of the language earlier in some respects than what can be seen
in the Masoretic text of the Old Testament, for while the Masoretes
preserved or restored the archaic consonantal spelling, they also
standardized and stereotyped the grammatical forms and pro¬
nunciation according to their own ideas of what was correct
Emphasizing the value of the Dead Sea Scrolls from this
point of view, Kahle observes that before they were discovered we
had only three unsatisfactory means of determining how Hebrew
was pronounced before the time of the Masoretes. Translitera¬
tions of parts of the Old Testament text in the Greek and Latin
alphabets were available, but such transliterations can never in¬
dicate pronunciation exactly. The pronunciation of Hebrew by
the Samaritans afforded some information, but allowance had to
be made for peculiarities of their dialect. The third means of re¬
covering a pre-Masoretic pronunciation was provided by Hebrew
texts with vowel-pointing according to an older Palestinian system.
In the orthography of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now have a fourth
body of evidence, perhaps the most important of all. Previous
discussions of pre-Masoretic Hebrew grammar must now be re¬
vised in the light of this new evidence.
Not only the pronunciation but also the formation of words is
illuminated by the Dead Sea manuscripts. In syntax also the scrolls
exhibit some characteristic features. Even in the biblical texts
notable modifications of the language are in evidence. Yet the
Hebrew of these documents is not at all the dialect of the later
rabbinic literature. Scholars have remarked that the scrolls prove
at least that a great deal was being written in Hebrew; indeed,
there must have been a veritable renaissance of the language in
the Hasmonean period. At the same time there are indications
that the spoken language of the scribes and authors was Aramaic
rather than Hebrew. Affinities with the slightly later Palestinian
Christian Aramaic or Syriac dialect have been detected. The
324 The Dead Sea Scrolls
points of contact with the Samaritan dialect of Hebrew, however,
indicate the persistence of Hebrew as a living language.
It is useless at present to speculate concerning the relative im¬
portance of time, place, and religious associations in forming the
language of these manuscripts. The dialect of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
if it may be so called, was not necessarily one spoken only in
the region of Jericho and the eastern slope of the Judean plateau.
The members of the group must have come from various parts of
Palestine. Much special study is still needed on these problems.
The proportion of texts in Hebrew rather than Aramaic is sig¬
nificant, however it is to be explained. The mother tongue of most
of the Jews of Palestine at this time was Aramaic. Hebrew may
have been used more for religious literature because it was the
language of Scripture and the synagogue. It must not be forgotten,
however, that a sufficient quantity of Aramaic texts has been
found to demonstrate the use of Aramaic also as a literary lan¬
guage. The Aramaic manuscripts of Qumran give us our first
literary documents in a form of Aramaic used in Palestine in the
time of Christ. Hitherto the only Aramaic documents known from
this period were brief inscriptions.
In discussing the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls we considered the
bearing of paleography on the question. Important as this line of
evidence is, we were compelled to recognize the fact that com¬
parative material for the late HeUenistic and early Roman periods
is none too plentiful, and very little of it can be exactly dated. The
enormous quantity of fragments and scrolls from the Wady
Qumran and the Wady Murabbaat has now very substantially
increased the amount of material available for the paleographer.
It makes possible a more complete sequence of types of script;
and when a few points in the sequence can be "fixed” by evidence
of other kinds, such as the pottery and coins found in the excava¬
tions, the relative dating becomes bit by bit an absolute dating.
Much has been learned from the scrolls and fragments concerning
the history of the square or Aramaic script. The accumulation of
almost innumerable fragments representing a long range of Hum
Contributions to Criticism , Grammar, Paleography 325
has made possible a much larger picture than was afforded by the
finds in the first cave.
Equally important for the paleographer are the fragments in¬
scribed in the Old Hebrew alphabet, though they still present a
problem of their own. Evidently the archaic script continued to be
used for a long time at Qumran; in fact a process of development
in this script itself can be seen. The manuscripts in which the
archaic alphabet is used are not older, it seems, but roughly con¬
temporary with those written in the square script. One fragment,
indeed, has the old script and the square script intermingled! Stu¬
dents of paleography will be kept busy for many years working
out all the details of these new developments. The Dead Sea cave
materials also illuminate other matters connected with ancient
writing and bookmaking. In them ancient Jewish methods of
producing books, about which all that was previously known
depended on statements in the rabbinic literature, can now be
studied at first hand.
XV
Contributions to the Study of
Judaism and Christianity
The matters treated in the foregoing chapter are of immediate con¬
cern only to specialists. A much broader interest attaches to the
contents of the texts and their importance for the history of
Judaism and Christianity.
The chief importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Jewish re¬
ligious and cultural history has been most plainly pointed out by
Kahle. In the generations following the destruction of the temple,
he reminds us, authoritative norms for Jewish life and thought
were codified, and the limits of the canon of Scripture was fixed.
All earlier writings not in accord with the “normative” Judaism
thus established were either destroyed or lost and forgotten.
It has always been clear to historians that before the destruc¬
tion of the temple Judaism was much more diversified than it
became in the Talmudic period; but all that was known concern¬
ing some of its varieties came from the comments of writers who
looked at them from the outside and without too much sympathy.
Only the apocryphal writings afforded any inside knowledge of
Jewish groups other than the Pharisees; and these were preserved
only by Christians, in translations (sometimes translations of trans¬
lations), and often in more or less altered and Christianized
editions.
In the Qumran texts and the Damascus Document we now have
3*6
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 327
a considerable quantity of literature cherished and produced
by a dissident group of Jews during the time when the temple was
standing, just after the composition of the latest books of the Old
Testament, and just before and during the time when the New
Testament was coming into being.
Our brief discussion of the beliefs of the sect has shown some¬
thing of the ideas expressed in these documents, including unex¬
pected conceptions of the meaning and way of salvation and ideas
concerning the nature of the sect itself as an organized remnant
within the Jewish nation. The religious vocabulary of Judaism in
these periods is richly illustrated by the texts. One of the most
significant aspects of pre-Christian Judaism which finds expres¬
sion in them is its devotional spirit. The Thanksgiving Psalms, the
concluding psalm of the Manual of Discipline, and the liturgical
portions of the War of the Sons of light with the Sons of Darkness
supplement in a very important way our knowledge of this side
of Judaism, for which previously we had almost no source material
outside of the Prayer Book and a few of the apocryphal writings.
Everything that is important for Judaism in the last two or three
centuries before Christ and in the first century a.d. is important
also for Christianity. By enriching our understanding of Judaism
in the period in which Christianity arose, the Dead Sea Scrolls
have given us material for a better understanding of the New
Testament and early Christianity. It has even been said that the
discoveries will revolutionize New Testament scholarship. This
may perhaps cause some alarm. There is no danger, however, that
our understanding of the New Testament will be so revolutionized
by the Dead Sea Scrolls as to require a revision of any basic article
of-Christian faith. All scholars who have worked on the texts will
agree that this has not happened and will not happen.
In our review of the controversies aroused by the discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls we have observed how much excitement was
caused by Dupont-Sommer's references to anticipations of Chris¬
tianity in the Habakkuk Commentary. Christians should have no
reluctance to recognize anticipations of Christianity in the Dead
Sea Scrolls or in other Jewish writings, if or when they really ex-
328 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ist. The Gospel was given as the fulfillment of what was already
revealed. God, who spoke in many and various ways to the
fathers by the prophets, spoke more clearly and fully in his Son.
Even the possibility of direct “borrowing” from the books of the
covenanters by the writers of the New Testament is merely a
question of historical fact. Why should not the church adopt and
preserve anything which it found true and valuable, as it un¬
questionably adopted some of the forms of synagogue worship
and later even appropriated pagan elements? Christians have
never hesitated to recognize that John the Baptist had some in¬
fluence on the early church.
Dupont-Sommer himself actually speaks of preparation rather
than anticipation, though he does use such terms as “reincarna¬
tion” and ‘borrowing.” Direct influence of the Qumran sect on the
early church may turn out to be less probable than parallel de¬
velopments in the same general situation. The question here is
the same one encountered when we attempt to explain similarities
between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, or between Christianity and
the pagan mystery cults.
It should not be surprising to find close contacts in language and
thought between the early church and the Qumran community.
Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan during the
time when the community of covenanters was flourishing not
many miles away. Many scholars have suggested that John the
Baptist was an Essene. Brownlee suggests that Essenes may have
adopted John as a boy, as was their custom according to Josephus.
Quite apart from the question of identifying the Essenes and
the Qumran covenanters, there are certainly many points at which
John’s ideas resemble those expressed in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Like
the covenanters, he was devoted to preparing the way of the Lord
in the wilderness. His baptism of repentance may have had some
historical connection with the ritual bathing of the Qumran sect.
He insisted, as the Manual of Discipline does, that without pre¬
vious spiritual cleansing bathing in water cannot remove guilt.
Parallels have been seen between John’s Messianic expectations
and those of the Dead Sea Scrolls. His prediction that the one
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 329
coming after him would execute judgment by fire is undoubtedly
related in some way to the Zoroastrian idea of a final conflagration
in which the mountains will melt and pour over the earth like a
river; and this idea is vividly presented in one of the Thanks¬
giving Psalms in terms of the “torrents of Belial" that will con¬
sume in flame even the foundations of the mountains. The con¬
ception of a Messianic baptism by the Holy Spirit is present also
in the scrolls. The statement of the Manual of Discipline that at
the end of this age God will cleanse man by sprinkling upon him
the spirit of truth recalls John's proclamation that the Messiah will
baptize his people with the Holy Spirit.
It has been argued that John’s movement originated within the
priesthood but later seceded from it, as the Qumran community
perhaps did. Many other common elements, more or less im¬
pressive, have been pointed out. It has even been suggested that
John may have thought of himself as the returning teacher of
righteousness before he transferred his hopes to Jesus. Unlike the
Essenes or covenanters, however, John addressed the whole people.
Another conspicuous difference between what we know of him
and what we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that nothing cor¬
responding to the strong organization of the community is at¬
tested concerning John’s disciples.
With regard to all this it must be said that, if John the Baptist
had ever been an Essene, he must have withdrawn from the sect
and entered upon an independent prophetic ministry. This is not
impossible, but the connection is not so close as to make it seem
very probable. It is not at all unlikely, however, that John had
some knowledge of the community of Qumran. The religious move¬
ment he inaugurated was certainly an expression of the same
general tendency in Judaism which produced that sect and others
in the period just before and after the beginning of the Christian
era.
Not only John the Baptist but even Jesus himself has sometimes
been thought to have been an Essene. This is quite out of the
question, as all competent historians now recognize. The Dead
Sea Scrolls, however, contain a number of points in language
33 ° The Dead Sea Scrolls
and ideas which seem surprisingly like what the New Testament re¬
ports concerning Jesus. Dupont-Sommer, after reading the
Habakkuk Commentary, declared that Jesus now seemed “an
astonishing reincarnation of the teacher of righteousness.” Like
Jesus, he said, the teacher of righteousness was believed by his
disciples to be God’s Elect, the Messiah, the Redeemer of the
world. Both the teacher of righteousness and Jesus were opposed
by the priestly party, the Sadducees; both were condemned and
put to death; both proclaimed judgment on Jerusalem; both estab¬
lished communities whose members expected them to return and
judge the world.
Many scholars hastened to point out that Dupont-Sommer’s
interpretation of the Habakkuk Commentary produced closer
parallels with Christian faith and practice at some points than
could be substantiated by exact exegesis. His statement that the
teacher of righteousness was God’s Elect and the Messiah, for ex¬
ample, is not borne out by the text of the commentary or any of
the scrolls. As we have seen, the term "elect” probably refers to
the community, and there is no indication that the teacher of
righteousness was believed to be the Messiah or the Redeemer of
the world.
There is nothing unique or new in the hostility of the priests to
the teacher of righteousness—or in his martyrdom, if that is
actually implied by the Habakkuk Commentary—"for so men
persecuted the prophets.” It is true that both Jesus and the teacher
of righteousness pronounced judgment on Jerusalem; so did many
of the prophets. The assertion that the teacher of righteousness was
expected to return and judge the world depends upon question¬
able interpretations of passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the
Damascus Document. The covenanters expected a Messiah, as
all Jews did; indeed, they expected two Messiahs. They expected
also a prophet, as other Jews did. That they looked for the return
of the teacher of righteousness himself has not been demonstrated.
Aside from parallels, real or supposed, in the careers of Jesus
and the teacher of righteousness, and in the beliefs of their fol¬
lowers concerning them, similarities in their own teachings have
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 331
been pointed out. That ethical teachings similar to those of Jesus
appear in the scrolls should not seem surprising. At best the re¬
semblance is not as close as may be found, for instance, in the
Testimonies of the Twelve Patriarchs. The contrast between the
love of enemies inculcated by the Sermon on the Mount and the
hatred for the sons of darkness demanded by the Manual of Dis¬
cipline shows how far the covenanters were from the teaching of
Jesus. Their high standards of morality in other respects are found
already in the Old Testament.
The teacher of righteousness claimed, no doubt, as Jesus did,
that the new revelation given to him explained and perfected the
revelation in the Scriptures. The rabbis also, while claiming no
such special revelation, felt that what they taught was the true
meaning of the law, although, more or less consciously, they
actually added much that was new. There is nothing in the Dead
Sea Scrolls approaching the radical interpretation of the law given
by Jesus, who made everything hang on Deuteronomy 6:5 and
Leviticus 19:18. There are sayings of the rabbis, in fact, which
come much closer to the teaching of Jesus at this point than any¬
thing in the scrolls.
Parallels between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the sayings of Jesus
concerning the future have been noted, but there the differences
are even more striking. At the same time the sharp opposition of
the realms of good and evil is as central in the teaching of Jesus
as it is in the Qumran literature, even though the scrolls do not
speak of the kingdom of God and the kingdom of Satan as Jesus
does, and he does not use the expression, “dominion of BiliaL”
It is at least worth noting also that Jesus speaks of the “sons of
light”: "for the sons of this world are wiser in their own genera¬
tion than the sons of light” (Luke 16:8). In general the sayings of
Jesus are related to the apocalyptic literature of Judaism more
closely than to anything in the scrolls. It may fairly be questioned,
indeed, whether the teachings of Jesus and the beliefs of the
Qumran community have anything in common which cannot be
found in other Jewish sources also.
With the early church of Jerusalem, as portrayed in the Acts of
332 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the Apostles, the situation is different. The resemblances here are
much more impressive and significant. The position of Peter in
the Jerusalem church has been compared with that of the “super¬
intendent* of the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Docu¬
ment. The authority of the Twelve Apostles in the early chapters
of Acts is recalled by the council of twelve laymen and three priests
in the Manual of Discipline. Nothing like the dominance of the
priests in the Qumran community is recorded concerning the early
church, but many priests are said to have joined the disciples
More important than the form of organization is what may be
called the church idea, the concept of a spiritual group, the true
people of God, distinct from the Jewish nation as such. In the
Qumran community’s concept of itself can be seen an approach
to this, doubtless without a full realization of all its implications;
but the Christian church itself did not at once realize the full
implications of the church idea.
In the forms of worship of the church and the Qumran sect
there are obvious similarities. We have found some ambiguity
in the evidence concerning the attitude of the sect to the temple
and its sacrifices. In this connection Sherman E. Jolmson has
called attention to the fact that two different tendencies developed
in the early church: some of the disciples continued to worship at
the temple, but the party led by Stephen preached that God did
not dwell in any temple made by human hands.
Both the covenanters and the early Christians also had rites of
their own that were notably similar. What has been said about
baptism in connection with John the Baptist applies as well to
the church of Jerusalem, and the references in the Manual of
Discipline to cleansing by the spirit of truth remind us of the
stress on the gift of the Spirit in the apostolic church. The regula¬
tions for the community meals in the Dead Sea Scrolls call to
mind “the breaking , of bread” together in the early church. Sug¬
gestions have been found in the Manual of Discipline concerning
the way in which the early church observed the sacrament of the
Lord’s Supper, and even concerning the procedure at Jesus’s last
supper with his disciples, as compared with the usual way of
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 333
observing the Passover. Such inferences, however, should not be
drawn without caution. There is little in the Gospels to suggest
that the fellowship of Jesus and his disciples had any such formal
structure as that of the Qumran community. That the commemora¬
tion of the Supper by the church was patterned more or less on
Jewish models is, of course, entirely probable. The meals of the
covenanters give us a concrete example of one such model, but
not necessarily one that particularly influenced Christian practice.
There are many points of similarity in the life and ideals of the
Qumran sect and those of the early church of Jerusalem. A spirit
of love and unity was cultivated in both, though their attitudes
toward those outside their own number were conspicuously differ¬
ent. The fellowship of the members found radical expression in the
Jerusalem church, as in the community of Qumran, in the sharing
of property. The Manual of Discipline prescribes the punishment
of “a man who lies regarding wealth,” indicating that cases like
that of Ananias and Sapphira were not unknown among the cove¬
nanters. The pu n is hm ent, however, was relatively lenient: exclu¬
sion from “the sacred food of the masters” for a year, with a reduc¬
tion of the food allowance by one fourth, instead of being struck
dead. Perhaps such cases were more common in the Qumran sect
than in the church.
Even the scholars who have looked most eagerly for parallels
between the early Christians and the covenanters have recognized
that there are equally notable differences. The church was not an
exclusive, esoteric group with jealously guarded secret teachings.
The gospel given to it had to be proclaimed to all the world. One of
the most conspicuous differences between the church and the
Qumran sect in organization and life was the entirely different
status of women in the two communities.
Some of the most characteristic theological doctrines of the New
Testament have parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is strikingly
true of some of Paul’s ideas. The “mystery of lawlessness” referred
to in II Thessalonians 2:7 has been compared with the “mystery
of evil” in the Thanksgiving Psalms. The dualism of the Dead Sea
Scrolls recalls the opposition of flesh and spirit and of the earthly
334 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the heavenly in Paul’s letters. In II Corinthians 6:14-15 Paul
sharply contrasts righteousness and iniquity, light and darkness,
Christ and Belial. The name Belial, one of the most characteristic
terms of the Dead Sea Scrolls, occurs only here in the New Testa¬
ment It has been suggested that Paul used at this point a bit of
early Christian tradition reflecting the ideas of the Qumran sect
Paul’s utter distrust of all human righteousness is not unlike
what appears in some of the scrolls. An important parallel to Ro¬
mans 3:20 and Galatians 2:16 has been seen in the following pas¬
sage in one of the Thanksgiving Psalms:
I know that righteousness does not belong to a man,
nor to a son of man blamelessness of conduct;
to the Most High God belong all works of righteousness.
The idea that only God is righteous, and no man can claim any
righteousness in his sight, appears already in very similar language
in the Old Testament. But the covenanters did not stop there.
Something approaching Paul’s idea of justification by the right¬
eousness of God is expressed in the concluding psalm of the Manual
of Discipline:
As for me, if I slip, the steadfast love of God is my salvation
forever;
and if I stumble in the iniquity of flesh,
my vindication in the righteousness of God will stand to eternity.
• • •
And in his steadfast love he will bring my vindication.
In his faithful righteousness he has judged me,
and in the abundance of his goodness he will forgive all my
iniquities.
The point of prime importance here is that while man has no right¬
eousness of his own, there is a righteousness which God, in his own
righteousness, freely confers. The meaning of the righteousness of
God in Romans 3:21-26 is thus illustrated and shown to be rooted
in pre-Christian Judaism.
Not only is salvation dependent upon God's righteousness; it
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 335
is also connected in the Habakkuk Commentary with faith in the
teacher of righteousness. The passage where this appears is a part
of the commentary on Habakkuk 2:4, one of Paul’s favorite proof-
texts for his doctrine of justification by faith in Christ. What the
commentator means by faith in the teacher of righteousness, how¬
ever, is not the same as what faith in Christ meant to Paul. Three
elements are more or less involved: fidelity to the teacher of right¬
eousness, confidence in him, and a belief about him. Some scholars
see here only the first of these three ideas, but it seems clear to
me that more than this is meant. Confident acceptance of his
teaching and leadership is presupposed, and this implies also the
belief that he knows by revelation the true meaning of prophecy.
The same three elements are included also in what Paul means
by faith in Christ, but the belief about Christ which he considers
necessary for salvation goes much farther than anything that was
believed about the teacher of righteousness. There is no implica¬
tion in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the teacher of righteousness had
himself accomplished a redemptive work in any way comparable
to the saving work of Christ.
Another difference must be noted also. The Dead Sea Scrolls
and the Damascus Document imply that faith in the teacher of
righteousness and the doing of the law constitute together the way
of salvation. For Paul justification was by faith alone, and good
works were not a condition but a result of salvation. The concep¬
tion that righteousness can only be given by God, not achieved by
man, is none the less important as a part of Paul's Jewish heritage.
Salvation included, for Paul, not only justification but also the
power to overcome sin through the gift of the Spirit. The Qumran
covenanters also attributed good works to God. The passage quoted
above from one of the Thanksgiving Psalms, after saying that all
righteous works belong to God, continues:
A man’s way is not established
except by the Spirit which God created for him
to make blameless a way for the sons of man.
338 The Dead Sea Scrolls
So also the lines quoted from the last column of the Manual of
Discipline are followed by these:
And in his righteousness he will cleanse me from the impurity
of man,
from the sin of the sons of man.
Salvation means for the covenanters, as for Paul, not only for¬
giveness and cleansing from sin but also participation in a spiritual
fellowship. One of the Thanksgiving Psalms speaks of "the eternal
assembly,” "the army of the saints,” and "communion with the
congregation of the sons of heaven.” The prominence of this idea in
the New Testament hardly needs to be emphasized. The stress on
unity and mutual love in the early church and in the Qumran
community has already been mentioned.
The covenanters' belief in predestination has been discussed in
Chapter XII. Paul too emphasizes divine election and foreordina¬
tion as the ground of man’s salvation. The problem of reconciling
this doctrine with commands and exhortations implying freedom
of choice is left unresolved in the Dead Sea Scrolls, as it is in Paul s
epistles; in fact, while the question is earnestly faced in the Epistle
to the Romans, it is not even raised in the scrolls. The Qumran texts
afford no examples of such theological arguments as we find in
the letters of Paul.
Echoes of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Epistle to the Ephesians
and the First Epistle of Peter have led a writer to say that if the
name of Christ were removed from these letters one might suppose
that they came from the Wady Qumran. Here again not all the
contacts are as significant as they may seem at first sight. The
exhortation of the high priest before the battle in the War scroll
contains the sentence: "Do not tremble or be in dread of them and
do not turn back." This has been pointed out as a striking parallel
with Ephesians 6:11, “that you may be able to stand against the
wiles of the devil.” The language of the high priest’s exhortation,
however, is directly based on Deuteronomy 20:3, and neither the
words nor the idea have any real connection with the verse in
Ephesians.
It has been said that the entire passage concerning "the whole
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 337
armor of God" in Ephesians 6:llff, even to details of formulation,
is deeply rooted in the tradition of the Dead Sea Scrolls; but the
basic idea and some of the details of these verses are based on
Isaiah 59:17, which was of course fa m iliar also to the writers of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. An exact parallel to the reference in Ephesians
6:16 to “the flaming darts of the evil one" has been seen in one
of the Thanksgiving Psalms; here the context shows that not flam¬
ing darts but lances flashing in the sun are referred to by the poet.
It is true, however, that this passage in Ephesians contains ideas
and terms found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Contacts between the scrolls and the Epistle to the Hebrews, to
which several scholars have drawn attention, consist not so much
in verbal parallels as in basic points of view. The writer of the
epistle is interested in the ritual laws of the Pentateuch but treats
them as only temporary, foreshadowing the effective and final sac¬
rifice of Christ, the Minister of a new and better covenant. The
covenanters, we have seen, had no idea of such a divine redemptive
act that would supersede the sacrificial system of the old covenant,
but they considered themselves the beneficiaries of a new cove¬
nant and used the language of the sacrificial cult in a figurative
sense.
If the references in the Thanksgiving Psalms to "the congrega¬
tion of the sons of heaven,” “the eternal assembly,” “the assembly
of the holy ones,” mean, as some believe, a celestial assembly in¬
cluding both angels and the souls of the righteous, there is an
impressive parallel in a familiar passage of the Epistle to the
Hebrews: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of
the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels
in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are
enrolled in heaven." This interpretation of the passage in the
Thanksgiving Psalm, however, is uncertain, as we have seen.
At many points in other books of the New Testament parallels
with the Qumran texts have been noted. One especially interesting
example may be mentioned. The explanation given in the Habak-
kuk Commentary for the unexpectedly long duration of the last
time recalls what is said in the third chapter of II Peter about the
338 The Dead Sea Scrolls
delay in the coming of Christ. The reader may remember that a
description of the final conflagration of the world like that in the
same chapter of II Peter is found in one of the Thanksgiving
Psalms.
More than in any other part of the New Testament, contacts
with the Dead Sea Scrolls have been noted by many scholars in
the Gospel of John. Perhaps the most striking verbal parallel is
in the closing psalm of the Manual of Discipline:
Everything that is he establishes by his purpose,
and without him it is not done.
A reader of the New Testament is reminded of what is said of the
eternal Word in John 1:3: “without him was not anything made
that was made.”
The dualism of light and darkness is especially characteristic of
this Gospel. As the War scroll says of the hosts of Belial, “In dark¬
ness are all their works," so John 3:19-21 says, . . the light has
come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,
because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates
the light, and does not come to the light, that it may be clearly
seen that his deeds have been wrought in God."
This antithesis runs all through the Gospel and epistles of John.
In John 12:35-38, to give only one more example, Jesus says, “The
light is with you for a little longer. Walk while you have the light,
lest the darkness overtake you; he who walks in the darkness does
not know where he goes. While you have the light, believe in the
light, that you may become sons of light." There are differences,
obviously, between the Johannine ideas and those of the Qumran
sect. For the evangelist the darkness has tried in vain to overcome
the light; the light has already triumphed over the darkness; Christ
himself is the Light of the world. These new and decisive notes,
however, do not diminish the importance of the common back¬
ground.
The whole manner of thinking and the literary style of the
fourth Evangelist are strikingly like what we find in the Qumran
texts. Whereas Paul thinks and writes more like a disciple of the
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 339
rabbis, the style and thought of “the beloved disciple” are more
priestly and liturgical—as though, it has been said, the Gospel
was written to be read aloud in a great cathedral. Such major ideas
as faith, truth, judgment, and love are equally prominent in the
Dead Sea Scrolls and in the fourth Gospel.
At other points scholars have seen in John’s Gospel either re¬
flections of the beliefs of the covenanters or reactions against them.
Many of the hypotheses that have been advanced seem to me more
ingenious than convincing, but every theory should have its day
in court and a fair hearing. I see no reason to believe, for example,
that the glorification of the law by the covenanters in particular,
rather than by Judaism in general, led the writer of the fourth
Gospel to stress Christ’s superiority to the law of Moses. That the
Evangelist had the teacher of righteousness in mind when he wrote
that Nicodemus addressed Jesus as “a teacher come from God,”
or that others hailed him as “the prophet who is to come into
the world,” is not even probable.
Other indications of Messianic ideas shared by the Evangelist
and the writers of the scrolls have been seen or fancied, but most
of them depend upon very dubious inferences from obscure pas¬
sages in the texts. Equally unconvincing, to my mind, is the sug¬
gestion that the preoccupation of the covenanters with the religious
calendar suggested the arrangement of Jesus’s miracles and dis¬
courses in the fourth Gospel in connection with the Jewish festivals.
Jesus s words to Nicodemus about being bom of water and the
spirit may have been intended to condemn reliance upon bap¬
tisms and ablutions, but the Qumran sect was not the only group
that practiced such rites.
Even the most striking parallels between the Johannine litera¬
ture and the Dead Sea Scrolls involve little that is peculiar to them.
Some of the features most characteristic of both groups of writ¬
ings have a wider background in the general stream of Iranian
influence in Judaism and in other religions of western Asia. What
may be said without any exaggeration is that the Gospel and
epistles of John and the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect the same general
background of sectarian Judaism. The scrolls thus show—and this
340 The Dead Sea Scrolls
has not always been recognized—that we do not have to look
outside of Palestinian Judaism for the soil in which the Johannine
theology grew.
Several scholars have argued that there must have been a much
closer connection. The writer of the fourth Gospel, says one, must
have been for some time a member, if not an officer, of the Qumran
community. The link between the Evangelist and the community,
says another, may have been John the Baptist and his followers;
the Evangelist, whom tradition connects with Ephesus, may have
been acquainted with the disciples of John the Baptist at Ephesus
who are referred to in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, or perhaps
the Evangelist was himself the unnamed disciple of John the
Baptist who followed Jesus, according to John 1:35-4°- StiU an "
other writer suggests that members of the Qumran community
may have taken refuge in Syria at the time of the Jewish revolt
against Rome, and the ideas they spread there by word of mouth
may in that way have come to the attention of the Evangelist.
All these ideas are worth mentioning, because they at least il¬
lustrate the stimulus the Dead Sea Scrolls have given to the imagi¬
nation of scholars. They are all legitimate and laudable, provided
the resulting theories are subjected to calm criticism, and vague
possibilities are not confused with certainties or probabilities. In
general it is quite possible, though hardly demonstrable, that the
Evangelist was led to a reappraisal and a new formulation of his
faith through an acquaintance with this or some similar Jewish
sect.
Far-reaching conclusions concerning the date and historical
value of the Gospel of John have been drawn from its affinities
with the Dead Sea Scrolls. A late date is precluded, it is argued,
because the Evangelist must have known at first hand the com¬
munity of covenanters, which was broken up and dispersed by
70 a . d . The possible connections with Syria or Ephesus just men¬
tioned show that this argument is inconclusive. The historical ac¬
curacy of the account of John the Baptist in the fourth Gospel has
been declared vindicated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, but the argu-
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 341
ment by which this is supported depends upon debatable inter¬
pretations of the texts.
The books that have been mentioned are not the only parts of
the New Testament in which the language and ideas of the Dead
Sea Scrolls seem to be echoed. The frequent references to “his
servants the prophets" in the Revelation of John recalls the use of
that expression in the Manual of Discipline. In the first three chap¬
ters of Revelation traces of an acrostic on the word Amen have
been detected, like the one in the tenth column of the Manual of
Discipline. An exceptionally obscure passage in the Thanksgiving
Psalms has recently been interpreted as dealing with the birth of
the Messiah, whose mother is the community itself, pictured as a
woman in the anguish of travail. In Revelation 12:1-6 there is a
mysterious account of a woman in heaven who brings forth “a
male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.”
Aside from specific parallels between particular books of the
New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls, a few more general
points of contact with the New Testament as a whole may be men¬
tioned. The attitude of the covenanters to the Old Testament is
a case in point. It has been observed that the fondness of the cove¬
nanters for some of the apocryphal writings raises the question
whether our sharp division between canonical and non-canonical
books existed for them. This has a bearing on early Christianity,
because books not contained in the canon of the Old Testament are
cited in the New Testament. The covenanters seem to have had the
same rather broad conception of Scripture as Jesus and the early
church.
We have already dealt with the sect’s interpretation of the Scrip¬
tures as an item in the history of Judaism. The Habakkuk Com¬
mentary in particular invites comparison with the New Testament
in this respect. In both cases it is believed that the true meaning of
prophecy has been communicated by a new revelation. The mode
of interpretation is much the same also. The teacher of righteous¬
ness, however, is not said to have fulfilled prophecy himself as
Jesus did, though something like this is involved in what is said
342 The Dead Sea Scrolls
about “the star." In general the ideas concerning the interpretation
of the Bible that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament ac¬
cepted were those which were prevalent at the time in Judaism,
though some of them may have been more characteristic of such
groups as the covenanters than they were of Judaism at large.
Together with the theological content of the New Testament,
the vocabulary with which its doctrines are expressed is illus¬
trated abundantly by the Qumran texts. To understand what the
words used by Jesus and the Apostles would mean to their hearers
or readers, one must know how the same words were used in con¬
temporary Jewish literature. At this point the Dead Sea Scrolls
substantially enrich the material at our disposal. In the Gospels
particularly, the Aramaic language of Jesus and the first disciples
lies just under the surface of the Greek text. Here most of all, but
also in the rest of the New Testament, the associations which the
words had for those who first heard and preached the gospel be¬
come clearer as we read the literature of their contemporaries, the
covenanters of Qumran.
Literary forms of composition used in the New Testament, as
well as theological ideas and vocabulary, are in some cases much
like those exemplified by the Dead Sea Scrolls. The canticles in
the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, which were probably
first composed in Hebrew, resemble the Thanksgiving Psalms in
some respects, though they have none of the obscure, perhaps
deliberately cryptic allusions with which the Thanksgiving Psalms
abound. In Colossians 1:12-14 a quotation of an early Christian
hymn is seen by some scholars, and it has been declared similar in
style and form as well as thought to the Thanksgiving Psalms. The
hortatory sections of the epistles in the New Testament have been
compared with the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus Docu¬
ment; here, however, the parallels in Greek literature are much
closer.
All these parallels and contacts, and many others that have been
adduced, are important for the study of the New Testament. They
are no less significant because some scholars have exaggerated
their importance. It is not necessary to suppose that any of the
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 343
writers of the New Testament had ever heard of the particular
sect that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls, and I see no definite evi¬
dence that they had. Why are the covenanters—or, for that mat¬
ter, the Essenes—nowhere mentioned in the New Testament?
There is no reticence with regard to the Pharisees and Sadducees
or the followers of John the Baptist.
For myself I must go farther and confess that, after studying the
Dead Sea Scrolls for seven years, I do not find my understanding
of the New Testament substantially affected. Its Jewish back¬
ground is clearer and better understood, but its meaning has nei¬
ther been changed nor significantly clarified. Perhaps I simply can¬
not see what is before my eyes. When visiting archeological ex¬
cavations, I have sometimes been unable, with the utmost good
will, to see things pointed out by the excavators. It is true that a
trained eye can often see what is invisible to the uninitiated. It
is also true that scholars, being human, sometimes fail to distin¬
guish between trained perception and uncritical imagination.
But why expect too much? Is it not enough that we can interpret
the New Testament with more assurance of perfect understanding
because we know better the intellectual and spiritual setting in
which it was written? And, knowing more fully the world into
which the Gospel came, its deep devotion and high hopes as well
as its pathetic aberrations, we can the better realize what the
Gospel brought to that world. Perhaps the best thin g the Dead
Sea Scrolls can do for us is to make us appreciate our Bible all the
more by contrast.
Connections between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the post-apos-
tolic Christian writings offer a fruitful field for study. One of the
French Dominican fathers at Jerusalem, J. P. Audet, has examined
the connections between the Manual of Discipline and the account
of the “Two Ways” contained in the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. In the second division of the
Manual of Discipline he finds a literary framework and a develop¬
ment of thought almost identical with those of the Two Ways,
though with great difference in detail. So close is the relationship
that he believes the author of the Two Ways may have been a
344 The Dead Sea Scrolls
member of the Qumran covenanters, or at least may have been
acquainted with them; in any case the moral teaching of the
Manual of Discipline must have been well known at the beginning
of the Christian era. The same scholar finds also a relationship be¬
tween the Manual of Discipline and the Shepherd of Hennas so
close as to suggest that Hennas goes back of the Christian apocry¬
phal literature to the ideas presented in the Manual of Discipline.
Here is an area of study calling for further exploration.
SUMMARY
Much obviously remains to be done in the investigation of the
Dead Sea Scrolls. The exhaustive study that is needed will take
many years and will require the attention of many scholars. Before
final conclusions can be reached, all the texts must be sorted out,
deciphered, and published. Meanwhile, however, much is already
assured. The “battle of the scrolls” concerning their dating has been
settled, and the views first advanced on the basis of paleography
still hold the field, even though at one point or another the lines
may have to be rectified.
The dates of composition of the individual documents are still
uncertain; consequently the origin and history of the sect still need
clarification. Further study of the archeological data will help in
these matters, but it may leave many questions still unanswered.
While the time when the site now known as Khirbet Qumran was
occupied by the sect has been fixed within the decades from 100
b . c . to 70 a . d ., the history of the group before the establishment
of the community at that place can only be inferred from the
texts. The organization and its extensive library may have been
much older than the settlement in the Wady Qumran.
The relation of the community to the groups in Judaism known
from other sources is still somewhat obscure. The identity of the
covenanters with the Essenes in particular is largely a matter of
definition. If the covenanters were not Essenes, they were in any
case closely related and lived in the same region.
Like the Christian monastic orders of the Middle Ages, the
The Study of Judaism and Christianity 345
covenanters rendered a service to biblical scholars by making and
preserving manuscripts of the Bible, even though most of these
have survived only in small scraps. For Isaiah and for two of the
three chapters of Habakkuk we have fairly complete texts. For
practically all the other books of the Old Testament we have some
fragments. The scrolls are therefore very important for textual
criticism. For the interpretation and theology of the Old Testament
they have relatively little value.
The doctrines and practices of the covenanters substantially
enrich our knowledge of Judaism at the time just before and dur¬
ing the origin and early growth of Christianity. It is now abun¬
dantly clear that we cannot understand the Judaism of the Roman
period simply in terms of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The tree
whose trunk was the Old Testament had then many branches
which later were lopped off or withered away.
The enlarged understanding of Judaism contributes in turn to
our understanding of the New Testament in its relation to its
background and derivation, and all the more so because the be¬
liefs, ideals, organization, and rites of the covenanters, as com¬
pared with those of the early church, exhibit both impressive
similarities and even more significant contrasts.
PART SIX
Explanatory note: In the first three of the following translations asterisks are
used to indicate places where the text, if not wholly destroyed, is preserved
in such a fragmentary condition that a connected translation is impossible,
in the other two documents such places are so numerous and extensive that
only the most fully preserved portions are here translated.
Dots indicate brief gaps in the text Occasionally, however, where the miss¬
ing text can be restored by conjecture with a reasonable degree of probabil¬
ity, this has been done without any indication in the translation. In two or
three places repetitions that were obviously caused by a scribe's carelessness
have been eliminated.
In the Damascus Document, which is here included because of its close
connection with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the numbered divisions correspond to
the chapters in the translation of R. H. Charles. In the Habakkuk Commen¬
tary the numbers given are those of the chapters and verses in the biblical
text of Habakkuk. For the Manual of Discipline only the most obvious major
divisions are indicated.
Some readers may be disappointed that translations of the Isaiah manu¬
scripts are not included. The fact is that most of the differences between these
manuscripts and the traditional Hebrew text do not involve changes of mean¬
ing that would be evident in a translation, and the differences that do involve
such changes are not sufficiently frequent to justify taking the space for trans¬
lations of these texts.
A. The Damascus Document
Part of this composition exists in two forms, that of Manuscript A being
briefer than that of Manuscript B. Portions contained only in the latter are
here enclosed in brackets and marked Ms. B.
History and Exhortation
I. And now listen, all you who know righteousness and understand
the works of God. For he has a controversy with all flesh, and will exe¬
cute judgment upon all who despise him. For when those who forsook
him trespassed, he hid his face from Israel and from his sanctuary, and
gave them up to the sword; but when he remembered the covenant of
the ancients, he left a remnant to Israel and did not give them up to
destruction. And in the period of the wrath—three hundred and ninety
years, when he gave them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon—he visited them and caused to sprout from Israel and Aaron
a root of planting to inherit his land and to grow fat in the goodness of
his soiL Then they perceived their iniquity and knew that they were
guilty men; yet they were like men blind and groping for the way for
twenty years. And God observed their works, that they sought him with
a perfect heart; and he raised up for them a teacher of righteousness to
lead them in the way of his heart And he made known to later genera¬
tions what he did to a later generation, to a congregation of treacherous
men, those who turned aside out of the way.
This was the time concerning which it was written, “Like a stubborn
heifer, Israel was stubborn," when arose the man of scorn, who
preached to Israel lying words and led them astray in a trackless wilder-
348
35° The Dead Sea Scrolls
ness, so that he brought low their iniquitous pride, so that they turned
aside from the paths of righteousness, and removed the landmark which
the forefathers had fixed in their inheritance, so making the curses of
his covenant cleave to them, delivering them to the sword that wreaks
the vengeance of the covenant. For they sought smooth things, and
chose illusions, and looked for breaches, and chose the fair neck; and
they justified the wicked and condemned the righteous, transgressed
the covenant and violated the statute. And they banded together against
the life of the righteous, and all who walked uprightly their soul ab¬
horred, and they pursued them with the sword and exulted in the strife
of the people. Then was kindled the wrath of God against their congre¬
gation, laying waste all their multitude; and their deeds were unclean¬
ness before him.
II. And now listen to me, all you who have entered the covenant,
and I will uncover your ears as to the ways of the wicked. God loves
the knowledge of wisdom; and sound wisdom he has set before him;
prudence and knowledge minister to him. Longsuffering is with him,
and abundance of pardon to forgive those who turn from transgression,
but power and might and great wrath with flames of fire by all the
angels of destruction upon those who turn aside from the way and
abhor the statute, so that they shall have no remnant or survival.
For God did not choose them from the beginning of the world, but
before they were established he knew their works and abhorred their
generations from of old, and he hid his face from the land and from his
people until they were consumed; for he knew the years of abiding and
the number and explanation of their periods for all who exist in the
ages, and the things that come to pass even to what will come in their
periods for all the years of eternity.
But in all of them he raised up for himself men called by name, in
order to leave a remnant to the land, and to fill the face of the world
with their seed. And he caused them to know by his anointed his Holy
Spirit and a revelation of truth; and in the explanation of his name are
their names. But those he hated he caused to go astray.
HI. And now, my sons, listen to me, and I will uncover your eyes to
see and understand the works of God, and to choose what he likes and
reject what he hates; to walk perfectly in all his ways, and not to go
about with thoughts of a guilty impulse and eyes of fornication; for
many went astray in them, and mighty men of valor stumbled in them,
formerly and until now. In their walking in the rebelliousness of their
The Damascus Document 351
hearts the watchers of heaven fell; in it they were caught who did not
keep the commandment of God, and their children, whose height was
like the loftiness of the cedars, and whose bodies were like the moun¬
tains, fell thereby. Yea, all flesh that was on the dry land fell; yea, it
perished; and they were as though they had not been, because they did
them own will and did not keep the commandment of their Maker,
until his anger was kindled against them.
IV. In it the sons of Noah and their families went astray; in It they
were cut off. Abraham did not walk in it, and he was accounted as
God’s friend, because he kept the commandments of God and did not
choose the will of his own spirit. And he passed on the commandment
to Isaac and Jacob, and they kept it and were recorded as friends of
God and possessors of the covenant forever.
The sons of Jacob went astray in them and were punished according
to their error, and their sons in Egypt walked in the stubbornness of
their hearts, taking counsel against the commandments of God and do¬
ing each what was right in his own eyes. They ate blood, and he cut off
their males in the desert. And he said to them in Kadesh, “Go up and
take possession of the land,” but they hardened their spirit and did not
listen to the voice of their Maker, the commandments of their Teacher,
but murmured in their tents.
Then the anger of God was kindled against their congregation; their
children perished by it, their kings were cut off by it, and their mighty
men perished by it; and their land was made desolate by it By it the
first that entered the covenant became guilty, and they were delivered
to the sword, because they forsook the covenant of God and chose their
own will, and went about after the stubbornness of their heart, each
doing his own will.
V. But with those who held fast to the commandments of God, those
who were left of them, God established his covenant for Israel to
eternity, revealing to them hidden things in which all Israel had gone •
astray. His holy Sabbaths and his glorious festivals, his righteous testi¬
monies and his true ways, and the desires of his will, by which, if a man
does them, he shall live, he opened up befoie them. And they dug a well
for many waters, and he who despises them shall not live. But they
defiled themselves with the transgression of man, and in the ways of
the unclean woman, and they said, “That is for us.” But God in his
wondrous mysteries forgave their iniquity and pardoned their trans¬
gression, and he built for them a sure house in Israel, the like of which
352 The Dead Sea Scrolls
has not existed from of old or until now. Those who hold fast to it are
for eternal life, and all the glory of man is theirs; as God established it
for them by the prophet Ezekiel, saying, The priests and the Levites
and the sons of Zadok, who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the
sons of Israel went astray from me, they shall offer to me fat and blood."
VI. The priests are the captivity of Israel who went forth from the
land of Judah, and the Levites are those who Joined them; and tho sons
of Zadok are the elect of Israel, those called by name, who will abide at
the end of days. Behold the explanation of their names according to
their generations, and the period of their abiding, and the number of
their distresses, and the years of their sojourning, and the explanation
of their works, the first saints whom God forgave, and who justified the
righteous and condemned the wicked.
All who come after them must do according to the explanation of the
law in which the forefathers were instructed until the completion of
the period of these years. According to the covenant which God estab¬
lished with the forefathers to forgive their sins, so God will forgive
them. And at the completion of the period to the number of these years
they shall no more join themselves to tho house of Judah, but every one
must stand up on his watchtower. The wall has been built; the decree is
far away.
And during all these years Belial will be let loose in Israel, as God
spoke by the prophet Isaiah the sen of Amoz, saying. Terror and the
pit and the snare are upon you, O inhabitant of the land.” This means
the three nets of Belial of which Levi the son of Jacob spoke, in which
he caught Israel and set them before them as three kinds of righteous¬
ness. The first is fornication; the second is wealth; the third is the pollu¬
tion of the sanctuary. He who gets out of one will be caught in another,
and he who is rescued from one will be caught in another.
VII. The builders of the wall who follow a precept—the precept is a
preacher, because it says, They will surely preach”—they will be
caught in two nets: in fornication by taking two wives during their life¬
time, whereas the foundation of the creation is, “male and female he
created them”; and those who went into the ark, Two by two they went
into the ark." And concerning the prince it is written, “He shall not
multiply wives for himself.”
But David did not read the sealed book of the law which was in the
ark; for it was not opened in Israel from the day of the death of Eleazar
and Joshua and the elders who served the Ashtaroth, but was hidden
The Damascus Document 353
and not disclosed until Zauok arose. The deeds of David were over¬
looked, except the blood of Uriah, and God left them to him.
Moreover they defile the sanctuary, because they do not separate ac¬
cording to the law, but lie with her who sees the blood of her issue. And
they take each his brother’s daughter or his sister’s daughter; but Moses
said “You shall not approach your mother’s sister; she is your mother’s
near kinswoman." And the ordinance of intercourse for males is written,
and like them for the women. And if the brother’s daughter uncovers
the nakedness of the brother of her father; she is a near kinswoman.
Moreover they defiled their holy spirit, and with a tongue of blas¬
phemies they opened the mouth against the statutes of God’s covenant,
saying. They are not established.’’ And abominations they speak con¬
cerning them. They “all kindle fire and set brands alightl" The webs
of spiders” are their webs, and “adders’ eggs” are their eggs. He who
is near them shall not be counted innocent; the more he does it, the
more shall he be held guilty, unless he was forced.
But of old God punished their works, and his anger was kindled be¬
cause of their doings. For “it is not a people of understanding"; “they
are a nation void of counsel," because there is no understanding in
them. For of old arose Moses and Aaron through the prince of lights,
and Belial raised Jannes and his brother with his evil device, when
Israel was delivered the first time.
VIII. In the period of the destruction of the land arose the removers
of the landmark and led Israel astray. And the land became desolate,
because they spoke rebellion against the commandments of God by
Moses, and also by the holy anointed ones; and they prophesied false¬
hood to turn away Israel from following God.
But God remembered the covenant of the forefathers, and raised up
from Aaron men of understanding, and from Israel vise men. And he
made them listen, and they dug the well. “A well which princes dug,
which the nobles of die people delved with the staff." The well is the
law, and those who dug it are the captivity of Israel, who went out from
the land of Judah and sojourned in the land of Damascus, all of whom
God called princes, because they sought him, and their glory was not
rejected in the mouth of anyone. And the staff (or legislator) is he who
studies the law, as Isaiah said, “He produces an instrument for his
work." And the nobles of the people are those who come to dig the well
with the staves (or rules) which the staff (or legislator) prescribed to
walk in during the whole period of wickedness; and without them they
354 The Dead Sea Scrolls
*hall not attain to the arising of him who will teach righteousness at the
end of days.
And all who have been brought into the covenant not to come into
the sanctuary to kindle fire on his altar in vain shall become those who
shut the door, as God said, "Who among you will shut his door, so that
you will not kindle fire on my altar in vain?"—unless they observe to do
according to the explanation of the law for the period of wickedness;
and to separate from the sons of the pit; and to keep away from the un¬
clean wealth of wickedness acquired by vowing and devoting and by
appropriating the wealth of the sanctuary; and not to rob the poor of
his people, so that widows become their spoil, and they murder the
fatherless; and to make a separation between the unclean and the r.lpnn i
and to make men know the difference between the holy and the com¬
mon; and to keep the Sabbath day according to its explanation, and the
festivals and the day of the fast, according to the decision of those who
entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus; to contribute their
holy things according to their explanation; to love each his brother as
himself; and to hold fast the hand of the poor and the needy and the
proselyte; and to seek every one the peace of his brother; for a man shall
not trespass against his next of kin; and to keep away from harlots ac¬
cording to the ordinance; to rebuke each his brother according to the
commandment, and not to bear a grudge from day to day; and to sepa¬
rate from all uncleannesses according to their ordinances; for a man
shall not make abominable his holy spirit, as God separated for them.
For all who walk in these things in perfection of holiness, according
to all his teaching, God’s covenant stands fast, to make them live to a
thousand generations. [Ms. B: As it is written, "Who keeps covenant
and steadfast love for him who loves him and for those who keep his
co mm a ndm ents to a thousand generations.]
IX. And if they dwell in camps according to the order of the earth
[Ms. B: which was from of old] and take wives [Ms. B: according to
the guidance of the law] and beget sons, they shall walk according to
the law and according to the ordinances of the teachings, according to
the order of the law, as it says, "between a man and his wife and be¬
tween a father and his son."
But aU who reject it when God visits the land, the recompense of the
wicked is to be rendered to them, when the word comes to pass which
is written in the words of the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz, who said,
Tie will bring upon you and upon your people and upon your father's
The Damascus Document 355
house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed
from Judah." [Ms. B: But all who reject the commandments and the
statutes, the recompense of the wicked is to be rendered to them when
God visits the land, when the word comes to pass which was written
by the prophet Zechariah, "O sword, awake against my shepherd and
against the man who stands next to me, says God; smite the shepherd,
and the sheep shall be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the
little ones * Now “those who give heed to him" are the poor of die flock]
When the two houses of Israel separated, Ephraim departed from
Judah; and all who turned back were given over to the sword, but those
who stood firm escaped to the land of the north, as it says, “And I will
exile the sikkuth of your king and the kiyyun of your images from the
tents of DamascusThe books of the law are the booth of the king, as
it says, “And I will raise up the booth of David that is fallen" the king
is the assembly; and the kiyyun of the images are the books of the
prophets, whose words Israel despised; and the star is the interpreter of
the law who came to Damascus, as it is written, “A star shall come forth
out of Jacob, and a sceptre shall rise out of Israel." The sceptre is the
prince of the whole congregation. And when he arises, he “shall break
down all the sons of Seth."
These escaped in the period of the first visitation, but those who
turned back they delivered to the sword [Ms. B: when comes the Mes¬
siah of Aaron and Israel; as it was during the period of the first visita¬
tion, of which he spake by Ezekiel, “to set a mark upon the foreheads
of those who sign and groan," but the rest were delivered to “the sword
that executes vengeance for the covenant.”] And such shall be the judg¬
ment of all of those who enter his covenant that do not hold fast to the
oath, being visited for destruction through BeliaL That is the day on
which God will visit [Ms. B: as he has spoken.]
The princes of Judah have become those [Ms. B: who remove the
landmark; upon whom I will pour wrath like water] upon whom thou
wilt pour wrath. For they will hope for healing, but all the rebellious
will crush them, [Ms. B: for they entered the covenant of repentance;]
because they did not turn away from the way of the treacherous, but
defiled themselves in the ways of harlots and in the wealth of wicked¬
ness and revenge and bearing a grudge, each against his brother, and
hating each his neighbor; and they hid themselves each against his near
kin, and drew near to unchastity, and behaved arrogantly for wealth
and unjust gain; and they did each what was right in his own eyes, and
356 The Dead Sea Scrolls
chose each the stubbornness of his heart; and they did not separate from
the people [Ms. B: and their sin]; and they cast off restraint with a high
hand, walking in the way of the wicked, concerning whom God said,
“Their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps." The
serpents are the kings of the peoples, and their wine is their ways, and
the venom of asps is the head of the kings of Greece, who comes to take
vengeance upon them.
But all these things those who built the wall and daubed it with
whitewash did not understand, for a raiser of wind and preacher of
lies. [Ms. B: one walking in wind and weighing storms and preaching
to man for a he] preached to them, because the anger of God was
kindled against all his congregations, and as Moses said, “Not because
of your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart are you going in
to possess these nations, but because of his love for your fathers, and
because of his keeping the oath." And such is the judgment of the
captivity of Israel; they turned aside from the way of the people.
In God's love for the forefathers, who stirred up after him [Ms. B:
who testified against the people after God], he loved those who came
after them, for theirs is the covenant of the fathers. But in his hatred of
the builders of the wall [Ms. B; But God hates and abhors the builders
of the wall] his anger was kindled [Ms. B: against them and against all
who follow them].
And such is the judgment of every man who rejects the command¬
ments of God and forsakes them; and they turn away in the stubborn¬
ness of their hearts. This is the word that Jeremiah spoke to Baruch the
son of Neriah, and Elisha to his servant GehazL All the men who en¬
tered the new covenant in the land of Damascus, [Ms. B: but turned
back and acted treacherously and departed from the well of living
water, shall not be reckoned in the company of the people, and in its
book they shall not be written, from the day of the gathering in of the
unique teacher until arises a Messiah from Aaron and from Israel. And
such is the judgment for all who enter the congregation of the men of
perfect holiness, and he abhors doing the precepts of upright men. He
is the man who is melted in the furnace. When his deeds become
known, he shall be expelled from the congregation as one whose lot has
not fallen among those who are taught of God. According to his trespass
the men of knowledge shall rebuke him until the day when he comes
back to stand in the meeting of the men of perfect holiness. And when
his deeds become known, according to the interpretation of the law in
The Damascus Document 357
which the men of perfect holiness walk, no man shall agree with him in
wealth and service; for all the holy ones of the Most High have cursed
him.
And such shall be the judgment of every one who rejects the former
onec and the latter ones; those who have taken idols into their hearts
and walked in the stubbornness of their hearts. They have no share in
the house of the law. According to the judgment of their fellows who
turned back with the men of scorn shall they be judged, for they spoke
error against the statutes of righteousness and rejected the firm cove¬
nant which they had established in the land of Damascus, that is, the
new covenant. And neither they nor their families shall have a share in
the house of the law.
From the day of the gathering in of the unique teacher until the an¬
nihilation of all the men of war who returned with the man of the lie
will be about forty years; and in that period will be kindled the anger
of God against Israel, as it says, “There is no king and no prince and no
judge, and none who rebuke in righteousness." Those who repented of
the transgressions of Jacob have kept the covenant of God.
Then each will speak to his neighbor, to strengthen one another, that
their steps may hold fast to the way of God; and God will listen to their
words and hear, and a book of remembrance will be written before him
for those who fear God and think of his name, until salvation and
righteousness are revealed for those who fear God. Then you shall again
discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him who serves
God and him who does not serve him. And he will show kindness to
thousands, to those who love him and keep his commandments, to a
thousand generations, after the m a nn er of the house of Peleg, who went
out from the holy city and leaned upon God during the period when
Israel transgressed and polluted the sanctuary; but they turned to God.
And he smote the people with few words. All of them, each according
to his spirit, shall be judged in the holy council. And all who have
broken through the boundary of the law, of those who entered the
covenant, at the appearing of the glory of God to Israel shall be cut off
from the midst of the camp, and with them all who condemn Judah in
the days of its trials.
But all who hold fast to these ordinances, going out and coming in
according to die law, and who listen to the voice of a teacher and con¬
fess before God, "We have sinned, we have done wickedly, both we and
our fathers, in walking contrary to the statutes of the covenant; right
358 The Dead Sea Scrolls
and true are thy judgments against us"; all who do not lift a hand
against his holy statutes and his righteous judgments and his true testi¬
monies; who are instructed in the former judgments with which the
men of the community were judged; who give ear to the voice of a
teacher of righteousness and do not reject the statutes of righteousness
when they hear them—they shall rejoice and be glad, and their hearts
shall be strong, and they shall prevail over all the sons of the world,
and God will forgive them, and they shall see his salvation, because
they have taken refuge in his holy name.]
Community Regulations
X. Any man who dedicates anything which is the property of the
camp, according to the statutes of the Gentiles he must be put to death;
And as for what it says, "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against the sons of your own people," any man of those who enter the
covenant who brings a charge against his neighbor without having re¬
buked him before witnesses, and brings it in the heat of his anger, and
tells his elders, in order to bring him into contempt, he is an avenger
and grudge-bearer; but nothing is written except, "He takes vengeance
on his adversaries and bears a grudge against his enemies * If he kept
silence about him from day to day, but in the heat of his anger against
him spoke against him concerning a capital offense, he lias wronged
him, because he did not confirm the commandment of God, who said
to him, "You shall reprove your neighbor, lest you bear sin because of
him. ”
Concerning the oath: as it says, "Let not your own hand deliver you,"
if a man makes one take an oath in the open field, not in the presence
of the judges or at their command, his own hand has delivered him
When anything is lost, and it is not known who stole it from the
property of the camp in which it was stolen, one shall make its owners
take the oath of the curse, and he who hears, if he knows and does not
tell, shall be guilty.
When any restitution for guilt is made of something which has no
owners, he who makes restitution shall confess to the priest, and it shall
all go to him in addition to the ram of the guilt-offering. And so every¬
thing lost which is found and has no owner shall go to the priests, be¬
cause he who found it does not know the right of it If no owners are
found for it they shall keep it
The Damascus Document 359
When a man trespasses in any matter against the law and his neigh¬
bor sees it and he is alone; if it is a capital offense, he shall tell it in his
presence with an accusation to the superintendent, and the superin¬
tendent shall write it down with his own hand, until he does it again
before one witness; then he shall return and make it known to the super¬
intendent. If he is caught again before one witness, the case against him
is complete. But if there are two and they testify concerning one offense
(or, but they testify concerning a different offense), the man shall be
separated from the sacred food by himself, if they are trustworthy, and
on the day that they see the man they shall tell it to the superintendent
And concerning the statute: They shall accept two trustworthy wit¬
nesses, and concerning one offense, to separate the sacred food. And
there shall not be accepted a witness by the judges, to have a man put
to death on his testimony, whose days have not been fulfilled so as to
pass over to those who are numbered, one who fears God. No man shall
be believed against his neighbor as a witness who transgresses a word
of the co mm a n dment with a high hand, until he is cleansed so that he
can return.
XI. And this is the order for the judges of the congregation: There
shall be as many as ten men chosen by the congregation according to
the time, four of the tribe of Levi and Aaron and six from Israel, in¬
structed in the book of hgw and in the teachings of the covenant, from
five and twenty years to sixty years old. But no one shall take the posi¬
tion from the age of sixty years and upward to judge the congregation;
for when man transgressed, his days were diminished, and in the heat
of God’s anger against the inhabitants of the earth he commanded that
their knowledge should depart from them before they completed their
days.
XII. Concerning purification with water: Let not a man wash in
water that is filthy or not enough for covering a man. Let him not purify
in it any vessel. And any pool in a rock in which there is not enough
covering, which an unclean person has touched, its water is unclean Idee
the water of a vessel.
XIII. Concerning the Sabbath, to observe it according to its ordi¬
nance: Let not a man do work on the sixth day from the time when the
sun’s disk is its full width away from the gate, for that is what it says:
“Observe the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” And on the Sabbath day let
not a man utter anything foolish or trifling. Let him not lend anything
to his neighbor. Let them not shed blood over wealth and gain. Let him
360 The Dead Sea Scrolls
not speak of matters of work and labor to be done on the morrow. Let
not a man walk in the field to do the work of his business on the Sab¬
bath. Let him not walk out of his city more than a thousand cubits. Let
not a man eat on the Sabbath day anything but what is prepared. And
of what is perishing in the field let him not eat. And let him not drink
anything except what is in the camp. If he is on the way and is going
down to battle let him drink where he stands, but let him not draw
water into any vessel. Let him not send the son of a foreigner to do his
business on the Sabbath day. Let not a man put on garments that are
filthy or that were put in storage unless they have been washed in water
or rubbed with frankincense. Let not a man go hungry of his own ac¬
cord on the Sabbath. Let not a man walk after an animal to pasture it
outside of his city more than two thousand cubits. Let him not lift his
hand to strike it with his fist. If it is stubborn, let him not take it out of
his house. Let not a man take anything from the house out-of-doors, or
from out-of-doors into the house, and if he is in a booth, let him not take
anything out of it or bring anything into it Let him not open a sealed
vessel on the Sabbath. Let not a man take on him ointments to go out
and come in on the Sabbath. Let him not lift up in his dwelling house
rock or earth. Let not the nurse take up the sucking child to go out and
come in on the Sabbath. Let not a man provoke his male or female slave
or his hired servant on the Sabbath. Let not a man help an animal to
give birth on the Sabbath day; and if she lets her young fall into a as¬
tern or a ditch, let him not raise it on the Sabbath. Let not a man rest in
a place near to Gentiles on the Sabbath. Let not a man profano the Sab¬
bath for the sake of wealth or gain on the Sabbath. And if any person
falls into a place of water, or into a place, let not a man come up by a
ladder or rope or instrument Let not a man bring up anything to the
altar on the Sabbath except the burnt offering of the Sabbath, for thus it
is written, "beside your Sabbaths."
XIV. Let not a man send to the altar burnt offering or meal offering
or frankincense or wood by the hand of a man who is unclean with any
of the uncleannesses, allowing him to make the altar unclean; for it is
written. The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, but the prayer
of the righteous is like an acceptable offering.” And when anyone enters
the house of worship, let him not enter while unclean, requiring wash¬
ing. And when the trumpets of assembly sound, let him act before or
afterward, or so that they shall not stop the whole service on the Sab-
The Damascus Document 361
bath; it is holy. Let not a man lie with a woman in the city of the sanc¬
tuary making unclean the city of the sanctuary with their impurity.
Any man in whom the spirits of Belial rule, and who speaks rebellion,
shall be judged according to the judgment of the medium and wizard.
And every one who goes astray so that he profanes the Sabbath and the
feasts shall not be put to death, but the sons of man shall be responsible
for taking charge of him; and if he is healed of it, they shall have charge
of him seven years, and after that he shall come into the assembly.
Let no one stretch out his hand to shed the blood of a man of the
Gentiles on account of wealth and gain; moreover let him not take any
of their wealth, lest they blaspheme, unless it is by the counsel of the
society of Israel. Let not a man sell animals or birds that are clean to the
Gentiles, lest they sacrifice them. And from his threshing-floor or his
winepress let him not sell them anything among all his possessions. And
let him not sell them his male or female slave who entered with him into
the covenant of Abraham.
Let not a man make himself abominable with any living creature or
creeping thing by eating of them, from the larvae of bees to any living
creature that creeps in the water. And let not fish be eaten unless they
have been split alive and their blood has been poured out. And all the
locusts according to their kinds shall be put into fire or into water while
they are still alive, for this is the law of their creation. And all wood and
stones and dust which are polluted by the uncleanness of men shall be
considered like them as polluting: according to their uncleanness he
who touches them shall be unclean. And every instrument, nail, or peg
in the wall which is with the dead in the house shall be unclean with
the uncleanness of an implement for work.
XV. The order of the session of the cities of Israel: According to
these ordinances separation is to be made between the unclean and the
clean, and the difference between the holy and the common is to be
made known. And these are the statutes for the wise man, that he may
walk in them with every living being according to the law of one time
and another. And according to this ordinance the seed of Israel shall
walk, and they shall not be cursed.
And this is the order of the session of the camps: Those who walk in
these ways during the period of wickedness, until arises the Messiah of
Aaron and Israel, must be as many as ten men at least, by thousands and
hundreds and fifties and tens. And in a place having ten there shall not
362 The Dead Sea Scrolls
be absent a priest learned in the book of hgw. According to his word
s h all they all be ruled. And if he is not qualified in all these ways, but a
man of the Levites is qualified in these ways, the decision to go out or
come in for all who enter the camp shall be made according to his direc¬
tion. And if there is a judgment against a man concerning the law of
disease, then the priest shall come and stand in the camp, and the
superintendent shall instruct him in the explanation of the law. And if
he is simple, he shall lock him up; for theirs is the judgment
XVI. And this is the order for the sujxirintendent of the camp: He
shall Instruct the many in the works of God and make them under¬
stand his wondrous mighty acts; and he shall recount before them tho
things that have been done of old in their divisions. And he shall have
mercy on them as a father on his sons, and shall bring back all their
erring ones as a shepherd does with his flock. He shall loose all the ties
that bind them, so that there shall be none oppressed and crushed in
his congregation. And every one who is added to his congregation he
shall examine him as to his works, his understanding, his strength, his
might, and his wealth. And they shall register him in his place accord¬
ing to his being in the lot of the truth. No man of the sons of the camp
shall have authority to bring a man into the congregation without the
word of the superintendent of the camp. And no man of all those who
enter the covenant of God shall do business with the sons of the pit
except hand to hand. And no man shall make an agreement for buying
and selling unless he has told the superintendent who is in the camp.
• • •
For all who walk in these ways the covenant of God stands fast, to
rescue them from all snares of the pit; for the simple go on and aro
pun i shed.
XVII. And this is the order of the session of all the camps: They shall
all be enrolled by their names; the priests first, the Levites second, the
sons of Israel third, and the proselyte fourth. And so they shall sit, and
so they shall ask concerning everything. And the priest who is ap¬
pointed at the head of the many shall be from thirty to sixty years old,
instructed in the book of hgw and in all the ordinances of the law, so as
to speak them rightly. And the superintendent who is over all the camps
shall be from thirty years old to fifty years old, proficient in every secret
counsel of men and in every tongue according to their number. Accord¬
ing to his direction those who enter the congregation shall enter, each
The Damascus Document 363
in his turn. And any word which any man has to speak he shall speak
to the superintendent concerning any controversy and decision.
XVIII. And this is the order of the many, for settling all their affairs:
The wages of two days for every month at least—and they shall put it
into the hand of the superintendent, and the judges shall give from it
for orphans, and from it they shall support the poor and the needy, and
for the aged man who dies, and for the wanderer, and for him who goes
into captivity to a foreign people, and for the virgin who has no re¬
deemer, and for the slave for whom nobody seeks any work of the as¬
sociation.
• • •
XIX He shall not swear either by aleph and lamed or by aleph and
daleth.
• • •
If he swears and transgresses, he profanes the Name. And if by the
curses of the covenant he has sworn before the judges, and has trans¬
gressed, he is guilty; and he shall confess and make restitution, that he
may not bear sin and die. The sons of those who enter the covenant for
all Israel for an eternal decree, when they attain to passing into the
number of those enrolled, shall be obligated by the oath of the covenant
And such is the ordinance during the whole period of wickedness for
every one who turns from his corrupt way. On the day that he speaks
with the superintendent of the many they shall enroll him with the oath
of the covenant which Moses made with Israel, the covenant to return
to the law of Moses with the whole heart and with the whole soul, to
what one finds to do during the whole period of wickedness. But no man
shall tell him the ordinances until he stands before'the superintendent,
lest he prove simple when he examines him.
Therefore the man shall obligate himself to return to the law of Moses,
for in it everything is specified.
XX. The explanation of their periods, for the blindness of Israel to
all these, is specified in the Book of the Divisions of the Times accord¬
ing to their Jubilees and in their Weeks. And on the day that the man
obligates himself to return to the law of Moses the angel of enmity will
depart from behind him if he makes good his words. Therefore Abra¬
ham was circumcised on the day that he received knowledge. And as
for what it says, “What has passed your lips you shall keep," to per-
364 The Dead Sea Scrolls
fonn it; no binding oath which a man takes upon himself, to do any¬
thing according to the law, shall he redeem even at the cost of death.
If a man takes anything upon himself contrary to the law, let him not,
even at the cost of death, perform it As for any oath of a woman, of
which it says, “Her husband must annul her oath," let not a man annul
an oath of which he does not know whether it should be confirmed or
annulled. If it is to transgress the covenant, he shall annul it and not
confirm it. And such is the ordinance for her father. Concerning the law
of the free will offerings, a man shall not vow for the altar anything
taken by force.
B. The Habakkuk Commentary
Quotations from Habakkuk are In italics.
(Chapter 1:4) So the law is slacked. This means that they rejected
the law of God. And justice never goes forth, for the wicked man en¬
compasses the righteous man. This means that the wicked man is the
wicked priest, and the righteous man is the teacher of righteousness.
• • •
(5) Look among the nations, and see; Wonder and be astounded.
For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if it
were told. This means those who acted treacherously together with the
man of the lie, for they did not heed the words of the teacher of
righteousness from the mouth of God, and those who acted treacherously
against the new covenant, for they did not believe the covenant of God
but profaned his holy name. And truly the saying refers to those who
will act treacherously at the end of days: that is, those who are ruthless
against the covenant, who do not believe when they hear all the things
that are coming upon the last generation from the mouth of the priest
into whose heart God put wisdom to explain all the words of his servants
the prophets, through whom God declared all the things that are coming
upon his people and his congregation.
(6) For lo, I am rousing the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation.
This means the Kittim, who are swift and men of valor in battle, over¬
throwing rulers and subduing them in the dominion of the Kittim. They
365
366 The Dead Sea Scrolls
take possession of many lands and do not believe in the statutes of
God.
• • •
Over smooth ground they go, smiting and plundering the cities of the
earth, for that is what it says: to seize habitations not their own.
(7) Dread and terrible is he; from himself his fustice and his ex -
akedness proceed. This means the Kittim, the dread and terror of whom
are on all the nations. And with deliberation all their planning is to
work evil, and with cunning and deceit they proceed with all the
peoples.
( 5 ) Swifter than leopards are his horses, and more fierce than
evening wolves. His horsemen advance proudly, they spread out; from
afar they fly like a vulture swift to devour. ($) They all come for vio¬
lence; the aspect of their faces is an east wind. This means the Kittim,
who trample the earth with their horses and with their animals; and
from afar they come, from the coasts of the sea, to devour all the peo¬
ples like a vulture without being satisfied. And with wrath and indigna¬
tion, with hot ire and furious anger they deal with all the peoples; for
that is what it says: the aspect of their faces is an east wind. They
gather captives like sand.
000
(10) At kings he scoffs, and of rulers he makes sport. This means
that they mock at great ones and despise honored men; of kings and
princes they make sport, and scoff at a multitude of people. He laughs
at every fortress, and heaps up earth and captures it. This means the
rulers of the Kittim, who despise the fortresses of the peoples and with
mockery laugh at them, and with a multitude of people they surround
them to seize them, and in terror and dread they are delivered into
their hands; and they overthrow them because of the iniquity of those
who dwell in them.
(22) Then the wind changes and passes on, and he makes his might
his god. This means the rulers of the Kittim, who by the counsel of a
guilty house pass on, each before his fellow: their rulers come, one
after another, to destroy the earth. And he makes his might his god:
this means . . .
0 0 0
(12) Art thou not from everlasting, O LORD my God, my Holy OneP
We shall not die. O LORD, thou hast ordained him for judgment, and
thou, O Rock, hast established him to chastise him, (23) having eyes
The Habakkuk Commentary 367
too pure to behold evil; and thou const not look on wrong. This saying
means that God will not destroy his people by the hand of the nations,
but into the hand of his elect God will deliver the judgment of all the
nations and by their chastisement all the wicked among his people
will be punished; because they kept his commandments when they
were in distress. For as for that which it says, having eyes too pure to
behold evil, this means that they did not follow the lust of their eyes
in the period of wickedness. Why do ye look on faithless men, but thou
art silent at the swallowing by the wicked man pf one more righteous
than he? This means the houso of Absalom and the men of their party,
who kept silence at the chastisement of the teacher of righteousness,
and did not help him against the man of the lie, who rejected the law
in the midst of their whole congregation.
(14) And thou madest man Idee the fish of the sea, like crawling
things, to rule over them. (15) All of them with a hook he brings up,
and drags them out with his net; he gathers them in his seine. Therefore
he sacrifices to his net; therefore he rejoices and exults, (16) and bums
incense to his seine; for by them fat is his portion, and his food is rich.
the Kittim, and they gather their wealth with all their booty like the fish
of the sea. And as for what it says, therefore he sacrifices to his net and
bums incense to his seine, this means that they sacrifice to their stand¬
ards, and their weapons of war are the object of their worship. For by
them fat is his portion, and his food is rich: this means that they parcel
out their yoke and their tribute, their food, upon all the peoples year
by year, laying waste many lands.
(17) Therefore he bares his sword continually, slaying nations, and
has no pity. This means the Kittim, who cause many to perish by the
sword—youths, men, and old men; women and little children—and on
the fruit of the womb they have no mercy.
(Chapter 2:1) At my post 1 will take my stand, and station myself
on my tower, and look forth to see what he will say to me, and what he
will reply concerning my reproach. (2) And the LORD answered me
and said, “Write the vision and make it plain upon the tablets, so that
he may run who reads it.
• • •
And God told Habakkuk to write the dungs that were to come upon
the last generation, but the consummation of the period he did not make
368 The Dead Sea Scrolls
known to him. And as for what it says, that he may run who reads it,
this means the teacher of righteousness, to whom God made known all
the mysteries of the words of his servants the prophets.
(3) For still the vision is for an appointed time; it hastens to the
period and does not lie. This means that the last period extends over and
above all that the prophets said; for the mysteries of God are marvelous.
If it tarries, wait for it, for it will surely come; it will not delay. This
means the men of truth, the doers of the law, whose hands do not grow
slack from the service of the truth, when the last period is stretched
out over them. For all the periods of God will come to their fixed term,
as he decreed for them in the mysteries of his wisdom.
(4) Behold, puffed up, not upright is his soul in him. This means
that they make double the judgment upon themselves; they do not win
acceptance when they are judged, for their souls are not upright But
the righteous shall live by his faith. This means all the doers of the law
in the house of Judah, whom God will rescue from the house of judg¬
ment because of their labor and their faith in the teacher of righteous¬
ness.
(5) Moreover wealth is treacherous, an arrogant man, and will not
abide. His greed is as wide as Sheol; and he like death has never enough.
To him are gathered all the nations, and to him are assembled all the
peoples. (6) Shall not all of them take up their taunt against him, in
scoffing derision of him, and say, "Woe to him who heaps up, but it is
not his ownI How long will he load himself with pledgesF" This means
the wicked priest who was named according to the truth when he first
took office; but when he had begun to rule in Israel, his heart was
lifted up, and he forsook God and betrayed the statutes because of
wealth. He plundered and assembled the wealth of men of violence who
rebelled against God. He took the wealth of peoples, adding to himself
iniquity and guilt; and ways of abominations he wrought, in all im¬
purity of uncleanness.
(7) Will they not suddenly arise, those who torment you; will they
not awake, those who torture you? Then you will be booty for them.
(8) Because you have plundered many nations, all the remainder of
peoples will plunder you. This means the priest who rebelled . . .
his scourge with judgments of wickedness; and horrors of sore diseases
they wrought in him, and vengeance in his body of flesh. And as for
The Habakkuk Commentary 369
what it says, Because you have plundered many nations, all the remnant
of peoples will plunder you; this means the last priests of Jerusalem,
who assembled wealth and booty from the spoil of the peoples, but at
the end of days their wealth with their spoil will be delivered into the
hand of the army of the Kittim, for they are the remainder of the peo¬
ples. For the blood of men and violence to the earth, to the city and
aU who dwell in it: this means the wicked priest, whom, for the wrong
done to the teacher of righteousness and the men of his party, God de¬
livered into the hand of his enemies, afflicting him with a destroying
scourge, in bitterness of soul, because he acted wickedly against his
elect.
(9) Woe to him who gets evil gain for his house, to set his nest on
high, to be safe from the reach of harmI (20) You have devised shame
to your house by cutting off many peoples; and you sin against yourself.
(21) For the stone will cry out from the wall, and the beam from the
woodwork respond.
• • •
so that its stones are in oppression and its wooden beam In robbery.
And as for what it says, by cutting off many peoples; and you sin against
yourself; this means it is the house of judgment, of which God will set
the judgment in the midst of many peoples; and thence he will bring it
up for judgment, and in their midst will condemn it and punish it with
fire of brimstone.
(12) Woe to him who builds a town in blood and founds a city in
iniquity I (23) Is it not, behold, from Yahweh of hosts that peoples labor
only for fire, and nations weary themselves for naught? This saying
means the preacher of the lie, who enticed many to build a city of
d el usion in blood and to establish a congregation in falsehood for the
sake of its honor, making many grow weary of the service of delusion
and making them pregnant with works of falsehood, that their toil may
be in vain, to the end that they may come into judgments of fire, because
they reviled and insulted God's elect
(14) For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of
the LORD as the waters cover the sea. This saying means that when
they repent
• • •
the He. And afterward knowledge will be revealed to them like the
waters of the sea in abundance.
(15) Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink, who pours out his
370 The Dead Sea Scrolls
wrath; yea, he has made them drunk, to gaze on their festivals! This
means the wicked priest, who persecuted the teacher of righteousness
in order to confound him in the indignation of his wrath, wishing to
banish him; and at the time of their festival of rest, the day of atone¬
ment, he appeared to them to confound them and to make them stumble
on the day of fasting, their Sabbath of rest
( 16) You are sated with ignominy instead of glory. Drink, you your¬
self, and stagger! The cup in the LORD'S right hand will come around
to you, and shame will come upon your glory! This means the priest
whose ignominy was greater than his glory, because he did not cir¬
cumcise the foreskin of his heart, but walked in the ways of drunken¬
ness, that his thirst might be removed. But the cup of the wrath of God
will confound him, increasing his confusion. And the pain . . .
(17) For the violence done to Lebanon will overwhelm you; the
destruction of the beasts will terrify you, for the blood of men and vio¬
lence to a land, to a city and all who dwell in it. This saying means the
wicked priest, that to him may be paid his recompense, as he recom¬
pensed the poor; for Lebanon is the council of the community, and the
beasts are the simple ones of Judah, the doers of the law. God will
execute judgment upon him and destroy him, as he plotted to destroy
the poor. And as for what it says, for the blood of a city and violence to
a land, this means the city, that is Jerusalem, in which the wicked priest
wrought abominable works and defiled God’s sanctuary; and violence
to a land, these are the cities of Judah, because he plundered the wealth
of the poor.
(28) What profit is a graven image when he who forms it has graven
it, a molten image, a teacher of falsehood? For he who forms it relies
on what he has formed, making dumb idols! This saying means all the
graven images of the nations, who formed them to worship them and
bow down to them, yet they cannot rescue them on the day of judgment
(29) Woe to him who says to a wooden thing. Awake; to a dumb
stone. Arise! Can this give revelation? Behold, it is overlaid with gold
and silver, and there is no breath at all in it. But the LORD is in his
holy temple; let all the earth keep silence before him! This means all
the nations who worship stone and wood; and in the day of judgment
God will destroy all the worshipers of idols and the wicked from the
earth.
C. The Manual of Discipline
I —Entering the Covenant
. . . the order of the community; to seek God . . . ; to do what is good
and upright before him as he commanded through Moses and through
all his servants the prophets; to love all that he has chosen and hate all
that he has rejected; to be far from all evil and cleave to all good
works; to do truth and righteousness and justice in the land; to walk
no longer in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and eyes of fornication,
doing all evil; to bring all those who have offered themselves to do
God’s statutes into a covenant of steadfast love; to be united in the
counsel of God and to walk before him perfectly with regard to all the
things that have been revealed for the appointed times of their testi¬
monies; to love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the
counsel of God, and to hate all the sons of darkness, each according to
his guilt in vengeance of God.
And all who have offered themselves for his truth shall bring all their
knowledge and strength and wealth into the community of God, to
purify their knowledge in the truth of God’s statutes, and to distribute
their strength according to the perfection of his ways and all their
property according to his righteous counsel; not to transgress in any
one of all the words of God in their periods; not to advance their times
or postpone any of their appointed festivals; not to turn aside from his
true statutes, going to the right or to the left
And all who come into the order of the community shall pass over
into the covenant before God, to do according to all that he has com-
37 »
372 The Dead Sea Scrolls
manded, and not to turn away from following him because of any
dread or terror or trial or fright in the dominion of Belial. And when
they pass into the covenant, the priests and the Levites shall bless the
God of salvation and all his works of truth; and all those who are pass¬
ing into the covenant shall say after them, “Amen! Amen!”
The priests shall recount the righteous acts of God in his mighty
works and tell all the acts of steadfast love and mercy upon Israel;
and the Levites shall recount the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all
their guilty transgressions and sin in the dominion of Belial. Then ull
those who are passing into the covenant shall confess after them, say¬
ing, “We have committed iniquity, we have transgressed, we have
sinned, we have done evil, we and our fathers before us, in walking
contrary to the statutes of truth; but righteous is God, and true is his
judgment on us and on our fathers; and the mercy of his steadfast
love he has bestowed upon us from everlasting to everlasting.”
Then the priests shall bless all the men of God’s lot, who walk per¬
fectly in all his ways, and shall say: “May he bless you with all good and
keep you from all evil; may he enlighten your heart with life-giving
prudence and be gracious to you with eternal knowledge; may he lift up
his loving countenance to you for eternal peace." And the Levites shall
curse all the men of Belial’s lot and shall answer and say: “Accursed
may you be in all your wicked, guilty works; may Cod make you a
horror through all those that wreak vengeance and send after you
destruction through all those that pay recompense; accursed may you
be without mercy according to the darkness of your works, and may
you suffer wrath in the deep darkness of eternal fire. May God not be
gracious to you when you call, and may he not pardon, forgiving your
iniquities; may he lift up his angry countenance for vengeance upon
you, and may there be no peace for you at the mouth of all those that
hold enmity!” And all who are passing over into the covenant shall say
after those who bless and those who curse, “Amen! Amen!”
And the priests and Levites shall continue and say: “Accursed for
passing over with the idols of his heart may he be who comes into this
covenant and sets the stumbling block of his iniquity before him ,
turning back with it, and when he hears the words of this covenant
blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'May I have peace, because I walk
in the stubbornness of my heart!’ But his spirit will be swept away,
the thirsty together with the sated, without pardon. The wrath of God
and the jealousy of his judgments will bum in him to eternal destruc-
The Manual of Discipline 373
tion; and all die curses of this covenant will cleave to him; and God
will set him apart for evil; and he will be cut off from the midst of all
die sons of light, when he turns away from following God with his
idols and the stumbling-block of his iniquity. He will put his lot in
the midst of those accursed for ever." And all who are coming into
the covenant shall answer and say after them, “Amen! Amen!"
So shall they do year by year all the days of the dominion of Bella!
The priests shall pass over first in order, according to their spirits, one
after another; and the Levites shall pass over after them, and all the
people shall pass over third in order, one after another, by thousands
and hundreds and fifties and tens, so that every man of Israel may know
his appointed position in the community of God for the eternal council.
And none shall be abased below his appointed position or exalted above
his allotted place; for they shall all be in true community and good
humility and loyal love and righteous thought, each for his fellow in
die holy council, and they shall be sons of the eternal assembly.
Everyone who refuses to enter Gods covenant, walking in the stub¬
bornness of his heart, shall not attain to his true community. For his soul
has abhorred the discipline of knowledge, the judgments of righteous¬
ness he has not confirmed because of his apostasies; and with the up¬
right he will not be reckoned. His knowledge and his strength and
his wealth shall not come into the council of community, because in
the traffic of wickedness is his devising, and there is pollution in his
plans. He will not be justified while giving free rein to the stubborn¬
ness of his heart In darkness he looks at the ways of light, and with die
perfect he will not be reckoned. He will not be purified by atonement
offerings, and he will not be made clean with the water for impurity;
he will not sanctify himself with seas and rivers or be made clean with
any water for washing. Unclean, unclean he will be all the days that he
rejects the ordinances of God, not being instructed in the community
of his counsel.
But in a spirit of true counsel for die ways of a man all his iniquities
will be atoned, so that he will look at the light of life, and in a holy spirit
he will be united in his truth; and he will be cleansed from all his
iniquities; and in an upright and humble spirit his sin will be atoned,
and in the submission of his soul to all the statutes of God his flesh
will be cleansed, that he may be sprinkled with water for impurity and
sanctify himself with water of cleanness. And he will establish his
steps, to walk perfectly in all the ways of God, as he commanded
374 The Dead Sea Scrolls
for the appointed times of his testimonies, and not to turn aside to right
or left, and not to transgress against one of all his words. Then he will
be accepted by pleasing atonements before God; and this will be for
him a covenant of eternal community.
11 —The Two Spirits in Man
The instructor’s duty is to make all the sons of light understand and
to teach them in the history of all the sons of man as to all their kinds
of spirits with their signs, as to their works in their generations, and as
to the visitation of their afflictions together with the periods of their
recompense. From the God of knowledge is all that is and that is to be;
and before they came into being he established all their designing. And
when they come into being for their testimony according to his glorious
design, they fulfill their work; and nothing is to be changed. In his hand
are the ordinances of all; and he provides for them in all their affairs.
He created man to have dominion over the world and made for him
two spirits, that he might walk by them until the appointed time of his
visitation; they are the spirits of truth and of error. In the abode of light
are the origins of truth, and from the source of darkness are the origins
of error. In the hand of the prince of lights is dominion over all sons of
righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. And in the hand of the
angel of darkness is all dominion over the sons of error; and in the ways
of darkness they walk. And by the angel of darkness is the straying of
all the sons of righteousness, and all their sin and their iniquities and
their guilt, and the transgressions of their works in his dominion, accord¬
ing to the mysteries of God, until his time, and all their afflictions and
the appointed times of their distress in the dominion of his enmity. And
all the spirits of his lot try to make the sons of light stumble; but the
God of Israel and his angel of truth have helped all the sons of
light. For he created the spirits of light and of darkness, and upon them
he founded every work and upon their ways every service. One of the
spirits God loves for all the ages of eternity, and with all its deeds he
is pleased forever; as for the other, he abhors its company, and all its
ways he hates forever.
And these are their ways in the world: to shine in the heart of m a n ,
and to make straight before him all the ways of true righteousness, and
to make his heart be in dread of the judgments of God, and to induce
a spirit of humility, and slowness to anger, and great compassion, and
The Manual of Discipline 375
eternal goodness, and understanding and insight, and mighty wisdom,
which is supported by all the works of God and leans upon the abun¬
dance of his steadfast love, and a spirit of knowledge in every thought of
action, and zeal for righteous judgments, and holy thought with sus¬
tained purpose, and abundance of steadfast love for all the sons of
truth, and glorious purity, abhorring all unclean idols, and walking
humbly with prudence in all things, and concealing the truth of the
mysteries of knowledge.
These are the counsels of the Spirit for the sons of the truth of the
world and the visitation of all who walk by it, for healing and abundance
of peace in length of days, and bringing forth seed, with all eternal
blessings and everlasting joy in the life of eternity, and a crown of
glory with raiment of majesty in everlasting light
But to the spirit of error belong greediness, slackness of hands in
the service of righteousness, wickedness and falsehood, pride and
haughtiness, lying and deceit, cruelty and great impiety, quickness to
anger and abundance of folly and proud jealousy, abominable works
in a spirit of fornication and ways of defilement in the service of un¬
ci cann ess, and a blasphemous tongue, blindness of eyes and dullness
of ears, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart, walking in all the ways
of darkness and evil cunning. And the visitation of all who walk by it
is for abundance of afflictions by all destroying angels, to eternal perdi¬
tion in the fury of the God of vengeance, to eternal trembling and ever¬
lasting dishonor, with destroying disgrace in the fire of dark places.
And all their periods to their generations will be in sorrowful mourning
and bitter calamity, in dark disasters until they are destroyed, having
no re mn a n t or any that escape.
In these two spirits are the origins of all the sons of man, and in
their divisions all the hosts of men have their inheritance in their genera¬
tions. In the ways of the two spirits men walk. And all the performance
of their works is in their two divisions, according to each man's in¬
heritance, whether much or little, for all the periods of eternity. For
God has established the two spirits in equal measure until the last
period, and has put eternal enmity between their divisions. An abomina¬
tion to truth are deeds of error, and an abomination to enor are all ways
of truth. And contentious jealousy is on all their judgments, for they do
not walk together.
But God in the mysteries of his understanding and in his glorious
wisdom has ordained a period for the ruin of error, and in the appointed
376 The Dead Sea Scrolls
time of punishment he will destroy it forever. And then shall come out
forever the truth of the world, for it has wallowed in the ways of
wickedness in the dominion of error until the appointed time of judg¬
ment which has been decreed. And then God will refine in his truth all
the deeds of a man, and will purify for himself the frame of man, con¬
suming every spirit of error hidden in his flesh, and cleansing him with
a holy spirit from all wicked deeds. And he will sprinkle upon him a
spirit of truth, like water for impurity, from all abominations of false¬
hood and wallowing in a spirit of impurity, to make the upright perceive
the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the sons of heaven,
to instruct those whose conduct is blameless. For God has chosen them
for an eternal covenant, and theirs is all the glory of man; and there
shall be no error, to the shame of all works of deceit
Thus far the spirits of truth and of error struggle in the heart of a
man; they walk in wisdom and folly; and according to each man's in¬
heritance in truth he does right, and so he hates error; but according
to his possession in the lot of error he does wickedly in it and so he
abhors truth. For in equal measure God has established the two spirits
until the period which has been decreed and the making new; and he
knows the performance of their works for all the periods of eternity.
And he causes the sons of men to inherit them, that they may know
good and evil, making the lots fall for every living man according to
his spirit in the world until the time of visitation.
Ill —Rules of the Order
And this is the order for the men of the community who have offered
themselves to turn from all evil and to lay hold of all that he commanded
according to his will, to be separated from the congregation of the men
of error, to become a community in law and in wealth, answering when
asked by the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep die covenant, and when
asked by the majority of the men of the community, who lay hold of
die covenant. At their direction the regulation of the lot shall be de¬
cided for every case regarding law, wealth, or justice, to practice truth,
unity, and humility, righteousness and justice and loyal love, and to
walk humbly in all their ways, that each may not walk in the rebellious¬
ness of his heart or go astray after his heart and his eyes and the thought
of his guilty impulse; to circumcise in unity the uncircumcision of im¬
pulse and the stiff neck, to lay a foundation of truth for Israel for die
The Manual of Discipline 377
community of an eternal covenant, to atone for all who offer themselves
for holiness in Aaron and for a house of truth in Israel, and those who
joined with them for community and for controversy and for judgment,
to condemn all who transgress the statute.
And as for these, this is the regulation of their ways concerning all
these ordinances. When they are gathered together, every one who
comes into the council of the community shall enter into the covenant
of God in the sight of all who have offered themselves; and he shall take
it upon himself by a binding oath to turn to the law of Moses, according
to all that he commanded, with all his heart and with all his soul, to all
that is revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the priests who keep the
covenant and who seek his will, and to the majority of the men of their
covenant, who have offered themselves together to his truth and to
walking in his good will; and that he will take it upon himself in the
covenant to be separated from all the men of error who walk in the way
of wickedness. For these are not reckoned in his covenant, for they
have not sought or searched for him in his statutes, to know the hidden
things in which they have gone astray, incurring guilt, and the things
revealed which they have done with a high hand, arousing anger lead¬
ing to judgment and the wreaking of vengeance by the curses of the
covenant, bringing upon themselves great judgments to eternal destruc¬
tion without remnant
They shall not enter the water, in order to touch the sacred food of
the holy men, for they will not be cleansed unless they have turned
from their evil. For there is something unclean in all who transgress
his word. And he shall not be united with him in his work and in his
wealth, lest he bring upon him guilty transgression, but shall keep far
from him in everything, for thus it is written: “From everything false
you shall keep far." And no man of the men of the community shall
answer when asked by them regarding any law or ordinance. And
he shall not eat or drink anything from their wealth, and shall not take
from their hand anything at all except for a price, as it is written: “Cease
from man, whose breath is in his nostrils, for of what worth is he
reckoned?" For all who are not reckoned in his covenant are to be
separated with all that is theirs; and a holy man shall not lean upon any
works of vanity; for vain are all those who do not know his covenant,
and all those who despise his word he will destroy from the world, and
all their works are but impurity before him; and there is something
unclean in all their wealth.
378 The Dead Sea Scrolls
When he enters the covenant to do according to all these statutes, to
be united for a holy congregation, they shall investigate his spirit in the
community, between a man and his neighbor, according to his under¬
standing and his works in the law, as directed by the sons of Aaron, who
have offered themselves in unity to establish his covenant and to have
charge of all his statutes which he commanded men to do, and as di¬
rected by the majority of Israel, who have offered themselves to turn in
unity to his covenant. They shall be registered in order, each before
his neighbor, according to his understanding and his works, so that every
one of them shall obey his neighbor, the lesser obeying the greater; and
so that they shall have an investigation of their spirits and their works
year by year, so as to elevate each one according to his understanding
and the perfection of his way or put him back according to his perver¬
sions, so that each one may reprove his neighbor in truth and humility
and loyal love for each one.
One shall not speak to his brother in anger or in resentment, or with a
stiff neck or a hard heart or a wicked spirit; one shall not hate him in the
folly of his heart. In his days he shall reprove him and shall not bring
upon him iniquity; and also a man shall not bring against his neighbor a
word before the masters without having rebuked him before witnesses.
In these ways they shall walk in all their dwellings, every living man,
each with his neighbor. The lesser shall obey the greater with regard to
wages and property. Together they shall cat, and together they shall
worship, and together they shall counsel.
In every place where there are ten men of the council of the commu¬
nity there shall not be absent from them a priest Each according to his
position, they shall sit before him; and thus they shall be asked for their
counsel regarding everything. And when they set the table to eat or the
wine to drink, the priest shall stretch out his hand first to pronounce
a blessing with the first portion of the bread and the wine. And from the
place where the ten are there shall never be absent a man who searches
the law day and night by turns, one after another. And the masters
shall keep watch together a third of all the nights of the year, reading
the book and searching for justice, and worshiping together.
This is the order for the session of the masters, each in his position.
The priests be seated first and the elders second; then all the rest of
the people shall be seated, each in his position. And thus they shall be
asked concerning justice and every council and matter which comes
to the masters, so that each may render his opinion to the council of the
The Manual of Discipline 379
community. A man shall not speak in the midst of his neighbor’s words,
before his brother finishes speaking. And further he shall not speak
before his position which is written before him. The man who is asked
shall speak in his turn; and in the session of the masters a man shall not
speak a word which is not to the liking of the masters. And when the
man who is the superintendent over the masters—or any man who has a
word to speak to the masters but who is not in the position of the one
asking the community’s counsel—the man shall stand on his feet and say,
"I have a word to speak to the masters.” If they tell him, he shall speak.
Everyone who has offered himself from Israel to be added to the
council of the community shall be examined by the man appointed at
the head of the masters as to his understanding and his works. If he
comprehends instruction, he shall bring him into the covenant, to turn
to the truth and to turn away from all error; and he shall explain to him
all the ordinances of the community. Then later, when he comes in to
stand before the masters, they shall all be questioned about his affairs;
and as the lot determines, according to the counsel of the masters, he
shall be admitted or depart On being admitted to the council of the
community, he shall not touch the sacred food of the masters until
they examine him as to his spirit and his deeds when he has completed
a whole year; moreover he shall not participate in the wealth of the
masters.
When he has completed a year within the community, the masters
shall be questioned about his affairs, as to his understanding and his
deeds in the law; and if the lot determines that he shall be admitted
to the assembly of the community, as directed by the priests and the
majority of the men of their covenant, his wealth and his wages shall
be put at the disposal of the man who has supervision over the wages
of the masters, and he shall enter it in the account at his disposal, but
shall not spend it for the masters.
The new member shall not touch the sacred drink of the masters
until he has completed a second year among the men of the community;
but when he has completed a second year, he shall be examined with
questioning by the masters. If the lot determines that he is to be ad¬
mitted to the community, he shall be registered in the order of his
position among his brethren, for law and for judgment and for the
sacred food and for the sharing of his property; and tlie community
shall have his counsel and his judgment
These are the ordinances by which they shall judge when investigating
380 The Dead Sea Scrolls
together concerning cases. If there is found among them a man who lies
about his wealth, and knows it, he shall be excluded from the sacred
food of the masters for a year, and shall be deprived of a fourth of his
food ration. One who answers his neighbor with a stiff neck, or speaks
with impatience, breaking the foundation of his fellowship by disobey¬
ing his neighbor who is registered before him, his own hand has de¬
livered him; therefore he shall be punished for a year. Any man who
mentions anything by the Name which is honored above all shall be set
apart If one has cursed, either when frightened by trouble or for any
reason he may have, while he is reading the book or pronouncing a
blessing, he shall be set apart and shall not return again to the council
of the community. If he spoke in wrath against one of the priests
registered in the book, he shall be punished for a year and set apart
by himself from the sacred food of the masters. But if he spoke un¬
intentionally, he shall be punished six months.
One who lies about what he knows shall be punished six months. A
man who without justification knowingly denounces his neighbor shall
be punished for a year and set apart One who speaks craftily with his
neighbors, or knowingly perpetrates a fraud, shall be punished six
months. If he commits a fraud against his neighbor, he shall be punished
three months; if he commits a fraud against the wealth of the com¬
munity, causing its loss, he shall repay it in full. If he is not able to
pay it, he shall be punished sixty days.
One who bears a grudge against his neighbor without justification
shall be punished six months [inserted above this line: a year]; so also
he who takes vengeance for himself for anything. One who speaks with
his mouth the word of a fool shall be punished three months. For one
who speaks while his neighbor is speaking the punishment shall be
ten days. One who lies down and goes to sleep during a session of the
masters, thirty days. So also a man who leaves during a session of the
masters unadvisedly and without cause as many as three times at one
session shall be punished ten days; but if they object and he leaves, he
shall be punished thirty days.
One who walks before his neighbor naked when he does not have to
do so shall be punished six months. A man who spits into the midst of
the session of the masters shall be punished thirty days. One who brings
his hand out from beneath his robe when it is tom, so that his nakedness
is seen, shall be punished thirty days. One who laughs foolishly, making
his voice heard, shall be punished thirty days. One who brings out his
left hand to gesticulate with it shall be punished ten days.
The Manual of Discipline 381
A man who gossips about his neighbor shall be separated for a year
from the sacred food of the masters, and he shall be punished; and a
man who gossips about the masters is to be dismissed from among
them and shall not come back again. A man who murmurs against die
institution of the community shall be dismissed and shall not come
back; but if he murmurs against his neighbor without justification he
shall be punished six months.
If a man’s spirit wavers from the institution of the community, so
that he becomes a traitor to the truth and walks in the stubbornness of
his heart; if he repents he shall be punished two years. During the first
he shall not touch the sacred food of the masters, and during the
second he shall not touch the drink of the masters; and he shall be seated
after all the men of the community. When his two years are completed,
the masters shall be asked about his case. If they admit him, he shall
be registered in his position; and after that he shall be asked for judg¬
ment If any man is in the council of die community for ten full years,
and his spirit turns back so that he becomes a traitor to the community
and goes out from before the masters to walk in the stubbornness of his
heart, he shall not come back again to the council of the community. If
any man of the men of the community partakes with him of his sacred
food, or of his wealth which he has delivered to the masters, his sentence
shall be like his; he shall be dismissed.
There shall be in the council of the community twelve men, and there
shall be three priests who are perfect in all that has been revealed of
the whole law, to practice truth and righteousness and justice and loyal
love and walking humbly each with his neighbor, to preserve faithful¬
ness in the land with sustained purpose and a broken spirit, and to
make amends for iniquity by the practice of justice and the distress of
tribulation, and to walk with all by the standard of truth and by the
regulation of the time.
When these things come to pass in Israel, the council of the com¬
munity will be established in the truth for an eternal planting, a holy
house for Israel, a foundation of the holy of holies for Aaron, true
witnesses for justice and the elect by God’s will, to make atonement
for the land and to render to the wicked their recompense—this is the
tested wall, a precious cornerstone; its foundations will not tremble or
flee from their place—a most holy dwelling for Aaron with eternal
knowledge for a covenant of justice and to offer a pleasing fragrance,
and a house of perfection and truth in Israel to establish a covenant
38a The Dead Sea Scrolls
for eternal statutes. And they shall be accepted to make atonement
for the land and to decide the judgment of wickedness, and there
shall be no error. When these men have been prepared in the founda¬
tion of the community for two years with blameless conduct, they shall
be separated in holiness in the midst of the council of the men of the
community; and when anything which has been hidden from Israel
is found by die man who is searching, it shall not be hidden from these
men out of fear of an apostate spirit
When these things come to pass for the community in Israel, by
these regulations they shall be separated from the midst of the session
of the men of error to go to the wilderness to prepare there the way of
the LORD; as it is written, "In the wilderness prepare the way of the
LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God." This is
the study of the law, as he commanded through Moses, to do according
to all that has been revealed from time to time, and as the prophets
revealed by his Holy Spirit
Any man of the men of the community, of the covenant of the com¬
munity, who wilfully takes away a word from the whole commandment
shall not touch the sacred food of the holy men; he shall not know any
of their counsel until his works are cleansed from all error, so that he
conducts himself blamelessly. Then he shall be admitted to the council
as directed by the masters, and afterward he shall be registered in his
position. According to this law shall it be done for every one who
is added to the community.
These are the ordinances by which the men of perfect holiness shall
walk, each with his neighbor, every one who enters the holy council,
those who conduct themselves blamelessly as he commanded. Any
man of them who transgresses a word of the law of Moses overtly or
with deceit shall be dismissed from the council of the community and
shall not come back again; and none of the holy men shall participate in
his wealth or in his counsel concerning anything. But if he acts unin¬
tentionally, he shall be separated from the sacred food and the council;
and they shall interpret the ordi n a n ce that he shall not judge a man
or be asked concerning any counsel for two years. If his conduct is
perfect in the meeting, in interpretation, and in counsel as directed by
the masters; if he has not again sinned unintentionally by the comple¬
tion of his two years—because for one unintentional sin he shall be
punished for two years—as for him who acts deliberately, he shall not
The Manual of Discipline 383
come back again; only he who sins unintentionally shall be tested
for two years, that his conduct and his counsel may be perfected under
the direction of the masters—after that he shall be registered in his
position for the holy community.
When these things come to pass in Israel according to all these
regulations, for a foundation of a holy spirit, for eternal truth, for a
ransom for the guilt of transgression and sinful faithlessness, and for
acceptance for the land more than the flesh of whole burnt offerings
and the futs of sacrifice, and an offering of the lips for justice like the
pleasing quality of righteousness, and perfect conduct like a willing
gift of an acceptable offering; at that time the men of the community
shall be set apart, a house of holiness for Aaron, to be united as a holy
of holies and a house of community for Israel, those who conduct them¬
selves blamelessly.
Only the sons of Aaron shall administer judgment and wealth, and as
they direct the lot shall determine for every regulation of the men
of the community. As for the wealth of the holy men, who conduct
themselves blamelessly, their wealth shall not be combined with the
wealth of the men of deceit, who have not purified their conduct by
separating themselves from error and conducting themselves blame¬
lessly. They shall not depart from any counsel of the law, walking in
all the stubbornness of their hearts; but they shall be judged by the first
judgments by which the men of the community began to be disciplined,
until there shall come a prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.
These are the statutes for the wise man, that he may walk in them
with every living being, according to the regulation of one time and
another and the weight of one man and another; to do the will of God
according to all that has been revealed for each time at that time; and
to loam all the wisdom that has been found, according to the times, and
die statute of the time; and to set apart and weigh the sons of Zadok
according to their spirit; and to hold firmly to the elect of the time
according to his will, as he commanded. According to each man’s spirit
he is to be given his due; according to the cleanness of each man’s
hands he is to be admitted; and according to his understanding he is to
be accepted; so too his love together with his hate.
There must be no admonitions or contention with the men of the pit,
for the counsel of the law must be concealed among the men of error;
but there must be admonition of true knowledge and righteous judg-
384 The Dead Sea Scrolls
ment for those who choose the way; each according to his spirit, accord¬
ing to the regulation of the time, to guide them in knowledge and so to
give them understanding in the marvelous mysteries and truth among
the men of the community, that they may conduct themselves blame¬
lessly, each with his neighbor, in all that has been revealed to them—
that is the time of clearing the way to the wilderness--to give them
understanding of all that has been found to be done at this time; and
to be separated from every man, and not to pervert his way because of
any error.
These are the regulations of the way for the wise man in these times,
for his love together with his hate, eternal hate for the men of the pit in
a spirit of concealment, leaving to them wealth and manual labor like
a slave for the man who rules over him, and humility before the man
who has the mastery over him. Each one must be zealous for the statute
and its time, for the day of vengeance, to do what is acceptable in every¬
thing he puts his hands to, and in all his dominion as he commanded;
and everything done in it will be accepted freely.
IV —The Closing Psalm
With nothing but the will of God shall a man be concerned,
but with all the words of his mouth shall he be pleased;
he shall not desire anything which he did not command,
but to the ordinance of God he shall look always.
In every period that is to be he shall bless his Maker,
and in whatever state he is he shall tell of his righteousness.
With an offering of the lips he shall bless him
throughout the periods which A has decreed:
at the beginning of the dominion of light, through its circuit,
and at its ingathering to its decreed dwelling;
at the beginning of the watches of darkness,
when he opens his treasury and appoints it for a time;
and at its circuit, together with its ingathering before the light,
when lights appear from the holy habitation,
together with their ingathering to the glorious dwelling;
at the coming in of seasons in days of the new moon,
both their circuit and their connection one with another.
When they renew themselves, the M is large for the holy of holies;
and the letter N is for the key of his eternal, steadfast love.
385
The Manual of Discipline
At the heads of seasons in every period to be,
at the beginning of months for their seasons
and holy days in their fixed order,
for a memorial in their seasons,
with an offering of the lips I will bless him
as a decree engraved forever.
At the heads of years and in the circuit of their seasons,
when the circle of their fixed order completes the day ordained for it,
one leading to another: the season of reaping to summer,
the season of sowing to the season of vegetation,
seasons of years to weeks of them,
and at the head of their weeks for a season of emancipation;
as long as I exist a decree engraved shall be on my tongue
for fruit of praise and for a gift of my lips.
I will sing with knowledge,
and all my music shall be for the glory of God;
my lyre and harp shall be for his holy fixed order,
and the flute of my lips I will raise
in his just circle.
With the coming of day and night
I will enter the covenant of God;
and with the outgoing of evening and morning
I will speak his decrees;
and while they exist I will set my limit
so that I may not turn back.
His judgment I will pronounce, according to my perversity—
for my transgression is before my eyes—
like a statute engraved.
And to God I will say, “My righteousness";
to the Most High, “Foundation of my goodness,
Source of knowledge and Fountain of holiness.
Height of glory and Strength of all,
to eternal majesty!”
I will choose as he teaches me,
And I will be pleased as he judges me.
When I begin to put forth my hands and ray feet,
I will bless his name;
386 The Dead Sea Scrolls
when I begin to go out or come in,
when I sit down or stand up,
and as I lie on my couch, I will sing aloud to him;
I will bless him with an offering of the utterance of my lips
more than the oblation spread out by men.
Before I raise my hand to satisfy myself
with the delights of what the world produces,
in the dominion of fear and terror,
Ae place of distress with desolation,
I will bless him, giving special thanks.
On his might I will meditate,
and on his steadfast love I will lean all the day,
for I know that in his hand is the judgment of every living man,
and all his works are truth.
When distress is let loose I will praise him,
and when I am delivered I will sing praise also.
I will not render to a man the recompense of evil;
with good I will pursue a man;
for with God is the judgment of every living man;
and he will repay to a man his recompense.
I will not be jealous of an evil spirit;
wealth got by violence my soul shall not desire;
and the abundance of a man of the pit I will not seize
until the day of vengeance;
but my anger I will not turn back from men of error,
and I will not be pleased until he has established judgment
I will not remain angry with those who turn from transgression,
but I will not have mercy on any who turn aside from the way,
and I will not show favor to those who are smitten until their conduct
is blameless.
I will not keep baseness in my heart,
and folly shall not be heard in my mouth;
iniquitous falsehood, deceits, and lies
shall not be found on my lips;
but the fruit of holiness shall be on my tongue,
and abominable things shall not be found on it
The Manual of Discipline
With thanksgivings I will open my mouth,
the righteous acts of God shall my tongue recount always
and the faithlessness of men until their transgression is complete.
Empty words I will banish from my lips,
unclean things and perversions from the knowledge of my mind.
With wise counsel I will conceal knowledge,
and with knowing prudence I will hedge about wisdom
with a firm limit, to preserve fidelity
and strong justice according to the righteousness of God.
I will exult the decree with the measuring-line of times,
and will teach the practice of righteousness,
loyal love for the humble,
and strengthening of hands for the fearful of heart;
for the erring in spirit understanding;
to instruct the fainting with doctrine,
to answer humbly before the haughty of spirit,
and with a broken spirit to men of injustice,
who point the finger and speak wickedly
and are envious of wealth.
But as for me, my judgment belongs to God,
and in his hand is the blamelessness of my conduct
together with the uprightness of my heart;
and in his righteousness my transgression will be wiped out.
For from the source of his knowledge he has opened up my light;
my eye has gazed into his wonders
and the light of my heart penetrates the mystery that is to be.
That which is eternal is the staff of my right hand;
on a strong rock is the way I tread;
before nothing will it be shaken.
For the faithfulness of God is the rock I tread,
and his strength is the staff of my right hand.
From the source of his righteousness is my judgment
A light is in my heart from his marvelous mysteries;
my eye has gazed on that which is eternal,
sound wisdom which is hidden from the man of knowledge,
and prudent discretion from the sons of man,
a source of righteousness and reservoir of strength
387
388 The Dead Sea Scrolls
together with a spring of glory hidden from the company of flesh.
To those whom God has chosen he has given them for an eternal
possession;
he has given them an inheritance in the lot of the holy ones
and with the sons of heaven has associated their company
for a council of unity and a company of a holy building,
for an eternal planting
through every period that is to be.
But I belong to wicked mankind,
to the company of erring flesh;
my iniquities, my transgression, my sin,
with the iniquity of my heart
belong to the company of worms and those who walk in darkness.
For the way of a man is not his own,
a man does not direct his own steps;
for judgment is God’s,
and from his hand is blamelessness of conduct.
By his knowledge everything comes to pass;
and everything that is he establishes by his purpose;
and without him it is not done.
As for me, if 1 slip,
the steadfast love of God is my salvation forever;
and if I stumble in the iniquity of flesh,
my vindication in the righteousness of God will stand to eternity.
If he lets loose my distress,
from the pit he will deliver my soul;
he will direct my steps to the way.
In his mercy he has brought me near.
And in his steadfast love he will bring my vindication.
In his faithful righteousness he has judged me,
and in the abundance of his goodness he will forgive all my iniquities.
And in his righteousness he will cleanse me from the impurity of man,
from the sin of the sons of man.
Thanks be to God for his righteousness,
to the Most High for his majesty!
Blessed art thou, O my God,
who openest to knowledge the heart of thy servant.
The Manual of Discipline
Direct in righteousness all his works
and establish the son of thy handmaid,
as thou didst accept the elect of mankind
to stand before thee forever.
For without thee conduct will not be blameless,
and apart from thy will nothing will be done.
It is thou that hast taught all knowledge;
and everything that has come to pass has been by thy will.
And there is no other beside thee
to oppose thy counsel,
to understand all thy holy purpose,
to gaze into the depth of thy mysteries,
or to comprehend all thy marvels,
together with the strength of thy power.
Who is able to bear thy glory,
and what then is he,
the son of man, among thy marvelous works;
what shall one born of woman be accounted before thee?
As for him, he was kneaded from dust,
and the food of worms is his portion.
He is an emission of spittle, a cut-off bit of clay,
and his desire is for the dust.
What will clay reply, a thing formed by hand?
What counsel will it understand?
389
D. Selections from The War of the Sons
of Light with the Sons of Darkness
Figures in parentheses indicate columns and lines of the manuscript
I 0*7)
At the beginning of the undertaking of the sons of light, they shall
start against the lot of the sons of darkness, the army of Belial, against
the troop of Edom and Moab and the sons of Ammon, against die
people of Philistia, and against the troops of the Kittim of Assyria, and
with them as helpers the violaters of the covenant The sons of Levi, the
sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, the exiles of the desert, shall
fight against them and their forces with all their troops, when the exiles
of the sons of light return from the desert of the peoples to encamp
in the desert of Jerusalem. And after the battle they shall go up from
there against the king of the Kittim in Egypt; and in his time he shall go
forth with great wrath to fight against the kings of the north; and his
wrath shall destroy and cut off the hom of their strength. That will be
a time of salvation for the people of God, and a period of dominion
for all the men of his lot, but eternal destruction for all the lot of
Belial. And there shall be a great tumult against the sons of Japheth;
and Assyria shall fall with none to help him. And the dominion of the
Kittim shall come to an end, so that wickedness shall be laid low with¬
out any rem n ant; and there shall be no survivor of the sons of darkness.
The War of the Sons of Light
39i
II (ii.1-13)
The chiefs of the priests they shall arrange in rank behind the chief
priest and second to him, twelve chiefs to minister continually before
God. Twenty-six chiefs of the assignments shall minister in their assign¬
ments; and after them the chiefs of the Levites to minister continually,
twelve, one to a tribe; and the chiefs of their assignments shall minister,
each in his position. The chiefs of the tribes and the fathers of the con¬
gregation shall be always in their places in the gates of the sanctuary;
and the chiefs of their assignments with their officers shall be in their
places at their appointed times, for new moons and for sabbaths and
for all the days of the year. From fifty years old and upward, they shall
be in their places over the burnt offerings and over the sacrifices, to set
out the fragrant incense for God’s acceptance, to make atonement for
all his congregation, and to make acceptable offerings before him al¬
ways with an honored table. All these they shall set in order in the
appointed time of the year of release. During the thirty-three years of
war that are left the men of renown, those acclaimed in the assembly,
and all the chiefs of the fathers of the congregation shall choose for
themselves men of war for all the lands of the Gentiles from all the
tribes of Israel; men of valor shall be equipped for them, to go out for
warfare, according to the testimonies of war, year by year. But in the
years of release they shall not be equipped to go out for warfare, for
that is a sabbath of rest for Israel. During thirty-five years of service
the battle shall be set in array six years, and those who set it in array
shall be the whole congregation together. And as for the war of the
divisions during the twenty-nine years that are left, in the first year
they shall fight against Mesopotamia, and in the second against the
sons of Lud; in the third they shall fight with the remnant of the sons
of Syria, with Uz and Hul, Togar and Mashsha who are across the
Euphrates; in the fourth and fifth they shall fight with the sons of
Arpachshad; in the sixth and seventh they shall fight with all the sons
of Assyria and Persia and the people of the east as far as the great
desert; in the eighth year they shall fight against the sons of Elam; in
the ninth they shall fight against the sons of Ishmael and Keturah; and
in the ten years after these the war shall be distributed against all the
sons of Ham.'
The Dead Sea Scrolls
39»
III (iiLi-n)
. . . Ae ranks of battle, and the trumpets of their assembling when the
war gates are opened for the champions to go forth, the trumpets of
the war-blast over the slain, the trumpets of ambush, the trumpets of
pursuit when the enemy is smitten, and the trumpets of reassembly
when the battle turns back. On the trumpets of the assembly of the
congregation they shall write “The Called of God"; on die trumpets of
die assembly of the commanders they shall write “The Princes of God";
on the trumpets of the connections they shall write “The Order of God";
on the trumpets of the men of renown they shall write "The Chiofs of
the Fathers of the Congregation " When they are gathered together to
die house of meeting they shall write "The Testimonies of God for the
Holy Council." On the trumpets of the camps they shall write “The
Peace of God in His Holy Camps"; on their trumpets of breaking camp
they shall write “The Powers of God for Scattering the Enemy and
Putting to Flight Those Who Hate Righteousness and Turning Back
Kindness against Those Who Hate God." On the trumpets of the ranks
of battie they shall write "The Ranks of the Barmen of God for the
Vengeance of His Anger against All the Sons of Darkness." On the
trumpets of assembly of the champions, when the war gates are opened
to go forth to the array of the enemy, they shall write “Memorial of
Vengeance in die Assembly of God"; on the trumpets of the slain they
*Hal1 write “The Mighty Hand of God in Batde to Cast Down all the
Faithless Slain"; on the trumpets of ambush they shall write "The
Mysteries of God for the Destruction of Wickedness"; on the trumpets
of pursuit they shall write “God’s Smiting of All the Sons of Darkness—
His Anger Will Not Turn Back until They Are Destroyed." When they
return from the battle to come to the array, they shall write on the
trumpets of return The Gathering of God"; on the trumpets of the way
of return from the battle of the enemy to come to the congregation of
Jerusalem they shall write The Rejoicings of God at the Return of
Peace."
IV (iv.1-14)
On the standard of Merari they shall write The Offering of God," and
die name of the prince of Merari and the names of the commanders of
The War of the Sons of Light 393
its thousands; on the standard of the thousand they shall write “The
Anger of God with Fury against Belial and All the Men of His Lot with¬
out Remnant," and the name of the commander of the thousand and
the names of the commanders of its hundreds; on the standard of the
hundred they shall write “The Hundred of God, a Hand of War
against All Erring Flesh," and the name of the commander of the
hundred and the names of the commanders of its tens; on the standard
of the fifty they shall write “The Position of the Wicked Has Ceased
by the Power of God," and the name of the commander of the fifty
and names of the commanders of its tens; on the standard of the ten
they shall write “Songs of God with a Harp of Ten Strings," and the
name of the commander of the ten and the names of the nine men of
his command.
When they go to the battle they shall write on their standards “The
Truth of God," “The Righteousness of God," “The Glory of God," “The
Justice of God," and after these the whole order of the explanation of
their names. When they draw near to the battle they shall write on
their standards “The Right Hand of God," “The Assembly of God,"
“The Panic of God," “The Slain of God," and after these the whole
explanation of their names. When they return from the battle they shall
write on their standards “The Extolling of God," “The Greatness of
God," “The Praises of God," “The Glory of God," with the whole ex¬
planation of their names.
The order of the st an da r ds of the congregation: when they go out
to the battle they shall write, on the first standard “The Congregation
of God," on the second standard “The Camps of God," on the third
“The Tribes of God," on the fourth “The Families of God," on the
fifth “The Banners of God," on the sixth “The Assembly of God," on
the seventh "The Called of God,” on the eighth “The Armies of God,"
and they shall write the explanation of their names with their whole
order. When they draw near to the battle they shall write on their
standards “The War of God,” “The Vengeance of God,” “The Strife of
God,” “The Reward of God," “The Strength of God," “The Peace-
Offerings of God," “The Power of God,” “The Destruction of God on
Every Nation of Vanity," and the whole explanation of their names they
shall write on them. When they return from the battle they shall write
on their standards “The Deliverances of God," “The Victory of God,"
“Ihe Help of God," “The Staff of God,” “The Comfort of God," “The
Praises of God," “The Lauding of God,” “The Peace of God"
394
The Dead Sea Scrolls
V (vi.1-14)
. . . seven times, and they shall return to their position. And after them
three troops of champions shall go out and stand between the ranks.
The first troop shaU hurl at the rank of the enemy seven war-darts.
On the blade of the dart they shall write The Lightning of a Lance for
the Power of God"; and on the second weapon they shall write "Shoot¬
ings of Blood to make the Slain Fall in the Anger of God"; and on the
third dart they shall write "Flashing of a Sword Consuming the Iniqui¬
tous Slain in the Judgment of God." All these shall cast seven times and
return to their position. After them two troops of champions shall go
out and stand between the two ranks, the first troop, holding lance and
shield, and the second troop, holding shield and javelin to make the
slain fall in the judgment of God and to lay low the rank of the enemy
in the power of God, to pay the recompense of their evil to every na¬
tion of vanity. And the God of Israel shall have the kingdom; and
among the saints of his people he will display might.
And seven lines of horsemen also shall stand on the right and left of
the rank; on this side and that shall their lines stand: seven hundred
horsemen on one side and seven hundred on the other side. Two hun¬
dred horsemen shall go out with a thousand of the rank of the cham¬
pions, and so they shall stand on all sides of the camp. The whole shall
be four thousand six hundred and a thousand and four hundred chariots
for the men of the line of the ranks, fifty to a rank. And the horsemen
shall be beside the chariots, men of the line, six thousand five hundred
to a tribe. All the chariots that go out to the battle with the champions
shflll have stallions, swift-footed and tender-mouthed, gentle, and ma¬
ture, in middle life, trained for battle and able to hear sounds and to
see all imaginable sights. The men who ride on them shall be men of
valor for war, trained in chariotry, and in middle life, from thirty to
forty-five years old. And the horsemen of the line shall be from forty
to fifty years old.
VI (vii.1-15)
The men of the line shall be from forty to fifty years old; and those who
set up the camp shall be from fifty to sixty years old; the officers also
The War of the Sons of Light 395
shall be from forty to fifty years old. And all those who strip the slain
and those who take the spoil and those who cleanse the earth and
those who keep the weapons and he who sets out the food—all of them
shall be from twenty-five to thirty years old. And no youth or woman
shall enter their camps when they go forth from Jerusalem to go to
battle until they return. No lame or blind man or halt man, or one with
a permanent blemish in his flesh, or a man afflicted with the unclean¬
ness of his flesh—none of these shall go with them to battle; they shall
all be volunteers for war, blameless in spirit and flesh, and ready for
the day of vengeance. And no man who is not clean from his issue on
the day of battle shall go down with them; for holy angels are together
with their armies. And there shall be a space between all their camps
for the place of the hand, about two thousand cubits. And no inde¬
cent, evil thing shall be seen in the vicinity of any of their camps.
When the ranks of battle are drawn up over against the enemy, rank
over against rank, there shall go forth from the middle gate to the
space between the ranks seven priests of the sons of Aaron wearing
garments of white linen, tunics and trousers of linen, and girt with
girdles of fine twined linen, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, a varied
pattern, the work of a designer, and caps on their heads—garments of
war, not to be brought to the sanctuary. One priest shall go before the
men of the rank to strengthen their hands in the battle; and in the
hands of the other six shall be the trumpets of assembly, the memorial
trumpets, the trumpets of tile war-blast, the trumpets of pursuit, and
the trumpets of reassembly. And when the priests go forth to the space
between the ranks there shall go with them seven Levites holding in
their hands the seven rams’ horns of jubilee, and three officers of the
Levites before the priests and the Levites. Then the priests shall sound
the two trumpets of assembly.
VII (viii.1-14)
The trumpets shall continue to sound to direct the slingers until they
have finished throwing seven times. After that the priests shall sound
for them the trumpets of return, and they shall come beside the first
battle line to take their positions. The priests shall sound the trumpets
of assembly, and three troops of champions shall come out from the
gates and stand between the ranks, and beside them the charioteers to
39 6 The Dead Sea Scrolls
right and left Then the priests shall sound on the trumpets a pro¬
longed note, the signal for putting the battle in array, and the leaders
shall spread out to their lines, each to his position. When they are
standing in three lines, the priests shall sound for them a second call, a
quiet and sustained note, the signal for advancing until they are near
the rank of the enemy. Then they shall take hold of their weapons, and
the priests shall sound on the six trumpets of the slain a sharp and
agitated note to direct the battle; and the Levites and all those who
have the rams’ horns shall sound in unison a great war-blast, so that
the enemy’s heart shall melt At the sound of the blast, the war-darts
shall be let fly to make the skin fall. The sound of the rams’ horns shall
be accelerated, while with the trumpets the priests are sounding c
sharp and agitated note to direct the hands of battle until they have
thrown at the rank of the enemy seven times. After that the priests shall
sound for them on the trumpets of return a quiet, prolonged, and sus¬
tained note. According to this order the priests shall sound for the
three troops.
VIII (lx. 1-9)
They shall begin with their hands to make some fall among the slain;
and all the people shall make haste with the sound of the war-shout,
and the priests shall continue sounding on the trumpets of the slain to
direct the battle until the enemy is smitten and they turn their backs.
The priests shall sound to direct the battle, and when they are smitten
before them the priests shall sound on the trumpets of assembly, and
all the champions shall go out to them from the midst of the ranks of
persons. Then six troops shall stand, and the troop which is brought
near, all of them seven ranks, twenty-eight thousand men of war, and
the charioteers six thousand. All these shall pursue to destroy the
enemy in the war of God, to eternal destruction. Then the priests shall
sound for them on the trumpets of pursuit, and they shall gird them¬
selves against all the enemy, for a pursuit to destruction. And the
chariots shall turn them back into the battle until they are utterly de¬
stroyed. And while the slain are falling the priests shall keep sounding
from afar, but they shall not come in among the slain lest they be de¬
filed by their unclean blood, for they are holy; they shall not profane
the anointing oil of their priesthood with the blood of a nation of
vanity.
The War of the Sons of Light
397
IX (x.1-10)
. . . our camps, and to be on guard against every indecent, evil thing;
and what he made known to us, that thou art in die midst of us, a
great and terrible God, to despoil all our enemies before us. And he
taught us of old for our generations, saying, "When you draw near to
the battle, the priest shall stand and speak to the people, saying, ‘Hear,
O Israel, you draw near this day to battle against your enemies: do not
fear, and let not your heart faint; do not tremble or be in dread of
them; for your God goes with you to fight for you against your enemies
to save you.'" And our officers shall speak to all those ready for the
battle, willing volunteers, to make them strong in the power of God
and to turn back all the fainthearted; to make them strong together
with all mighty men of valor. And what he spoke through Moses, say¬
ing, "When you go to war in your land against the adversary who
oppresses you, you shall sound a war-blast on the trumpets, and you
shall be remembered before your God and shall be saved from your
enemies " Who is like thee, O God of Israel, in heaven or on earth,
who hast wrought such great works as thine and such mighty power
as thine; and who is like thy people Israel, whom thou didst choose for
thyself from all the peoples of the lands, the people of the saints of
the covenant?
X (xil—12)
For thine is the battle, and by the strength of thy hand their corpses
were scattered without burial. Goliath the Gittite, a mighty man of
valor, thou didst deliver into the hand of thy servant David, because he
trusted in thy great name and not in sword and spear, for thine is the
battle; and he subdued the Philistines many times in thy holy name.
Moreover by our kings thou didst save us many times, because of thy
mercy and not according to our works, in which we acted wickedly,
and the evil deeds of our transgressions. Thine is the battle, and from
thee is power, and it is not ours; nor has our strength or the might of
our hands done valiantly, but it is by thy strength and by the power of
Ay great might; as thou didst make known to us of old, saying, “A star
shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall arise out of Israel,
and it shall crush the forehead of Moab and break down all the sons of
398 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Sheth; and be shall go down from Jacob and destroy the remnant of
Seir, and the enemy shall be dispossessed, and Israel shall do valiantly"
By thy anointed ones, seers of testimonies, thou hast made known to us
the ordering of the battles of thy hands, to fight [interlinear correction:
to get glory] against our enemies, to make the troops of Belial fall,
seven nations of vanity, by the poor whom thou hast redeemed with
strength and with peace, for marvelous power, and a melted heart, for
a door of hope. And thou didst to them as to Pharaoh and the officers
of his chariots at the Red Sea. The stricken in spirit thou wilt consume
like a flaming torch among sheaves, consuming wickedness; thou wilt
not turn back until guilt is destroyed. Of old thou didst cause us to
hear the appointed time of the power of thy hand against the Kittim,
saying, “And Assyria shall fall by a sword, not of a man; and a sword,
not of man, shall devour him."
XI (xiLio-15)
Rise, mighty one; bring back thy captives, man of glory!
Seize thy plunder, thou who doest valiantly!
Lay thy hand on the necks of thy enemies
and thy foot on the heaps of the slain;
smite the nations, thy adversaries,
and let thy sword consume guilty flesh!
Fill thy land with glory,
thy inheritance with blessing!
Let there be an abundance of cattle in thy territories,
silver and gold and precious stones in thy palaces.
Rejoice greatly, O Zion;
appear with glad shouts, O Jerusalem;
and emit, all ye cities of Judah!
Open the gate continually,
that the wealth of nations may be brought in to thee;
that their kings may minister to thee,
and all that have afflicted thee may bow down to thee
and lick the dust of thy feet
O daughters of my people, cry aloud with the sound of a glad shout;
Adorn yourselves with glorious ornaments!
The War of the Sons of Light
399
XII (xiii.i-B)
. . . and his brethren the priests and the Levites, and all the elders of
the order with him; and they shall bless in their places the God of
Israel and all his faithful works, and his indignation which he has di¬
rected against Belial and all the spirits of his lot. And they shall answer
and say, “Blessed be the God of Israel with all his holy purpose and
all his faithful works. And blessed be all his hosts in righteousness,
who know him by faith.
“But cursed be Belial with his hostile purpose, and may he be an
object of indignation in his guilty dominion; and cursed be all the
spirits of his lot in their wicked purpose, and may they be objects of
indignation in all their unclean service of defilement; for they are the
lot of darkness, but the lot of God belongs to eternal light"
XIII (xiv.2-5)
After they have gone up from the slain to come to the camp, they
shall all sing the psalm of returning. And in the morning they shall
wash their garments and be cleansed of the blood of the corpses of
guilt; and they shall return to their positions where they set the rank
in array before the slain of the enemy fell. There they shall all bless
the God of Israel and exalt his name together with joy. And they shall
answer and say, “Blessed be the God of Israel, who maintains loyalty
to his covenant and testimonies of salvation for the people he has
redeemed."
XIV (xvii.5-9)
Today is his appointed time to lay low and to make fall the prince of
the dominion of wickedness; and he will send eternal help to the lot
he has redeemed by the power of the angel he has made glorious for
rule, Michael, in eternal light, to give light in joy to all Israel, peace
and blessing to the lot of God, to exalt among the gods the rule of
Michael and the dominion of Israel over all flesh. Righteousness shall
rejoice in the high places, and all the sons of his truth shall be joyful
in eternal knowledge. And you, sons of his covenant, be strong in the
crucible of God until he waves his hand and fills his crucibles with his
mysteries that you may stand.
E. Selections from the Thanksgiving
Psalms
Figure* in parentheses indicate columns and lines of the manuscript
I (L21-30)
These things I know from thy understanding,
for thou hast uncovered my ear for marvelous mysteries.
But I am a thing formed of clay, and kneaded with water,
the company of nakedness and source of uncleanness,
a furnace of iniquity and frame of sin,
a spirit of error and one perverted, without understanding,
and terrified by righteous judgments.
What shall X say without being instructed,
or declare without observing?
Everything is engraved before thee with a pen of remembrance
for all the everlasting periods
and the circuits of the number of the years of eternity,
with all their appointed times;
and they are not hidden or lacking from thy presence.
How then shall a man recount his sin,
or how argue concerning his iniquities?
What can he reply concerning righteous judgment?
Thine, O thou who art the God of knowledge,
are all works of righteousness, the counsel of truth;
but to the sons of man belong the service of iniquity
400
The Thanksgiving Psalms
401
and works of deceit
Thou didst create breath with the tongue;
thou knewest its words and didst establish the fruit of the lips
before they existed.
Thou didst place words on a line,
and the utterance of the breath of the lips in measure;
thou didst bring forth lines for their mysteries
and utterances of spirits for their reckoning,
to make known thy glory, and to tell thy wonders
in all the works of thy truth.
n (ii.8-13, ift-19)
I was a trap for transgressors,
but healing for all who repented of transgression;
prudence for the simple,
and a sustained purpose for all those of a fearful heart
Thou didst make me a reproach and derision to the treacherous,
a counsel of truth and understanding to those whose way is straight
I became, against the iniquity of the wicked,
an evil report on the lips of oppressors;
scomers gnashed their teeth,
and I was a song to transgressors.
Against me the assembly of the wicked made a tumult;
they roared like the gales of the seas,
when its waves make a tumult
and toss up mire and dirt
Thou didst make me a banner for the righteous elect,
an interpreter of knowledge in wondrous mysteries.
The men of deceit roared against me
like the sound of the roar of many waters.
Devices of Belial were their plans;
they turned to the pit the life of a man
whom thou didst establish by my mouth, and didst teach him;
understanding thou didst put in my heart
to open the fount of knowledge to all who understand.
But they exchanged them for the undreumdsed lips and alien tongue
of a people without underst an d in g,
that they might come to ruin in their error.
40 *
The Dead Sea Scrolls
III (ii.20-30)
I thank thee, O Lord,
because thou hast put my soul in the bundle of life;
thou hast fenced me off from all the snares of the pit
Oppressors sought my life,
while I laid hold on thy covenant
But they are a worthless company,
a congregation of BeliaL
They do not know that thou hast made me stand,
and in thy steadfast love thou wilt save my life,
for from thee are my steps.
As for them, it is from thee that they gather against my life,
that thou mayest be glorified by the judgment on the wicked.
Thou wilt work mightily in me before the sons of man,
for by thy steadfast love I stand.
But I said, “Mighty men have encamped against me;
they have surrounded me with all their weapons of war;
they have loosed arrows for which there is no healing,
and the flashing of a spear with fire that consumes trees.
Like the tumult of many waters is the roar of their voices,
a tempestuous cloudburst, destroying many;
nought and worthlessness break through to the stars
when their waves are lifted up."
But though my heart melted like water,
my soul took hold of thy covenant
The net they spread for me caught their own feet;
they fell into the traps they had hid for my souL
But my foot stands on level ground;
in the assembly I will bless thy name.
IV (ii.31-36)
I thank thee, O Lord,
because thine eye watches over my soul;
thou hast rescued me from the jealousy of the interpreters of lies,
from the congregation of those who seek smooth things.
Thou hast redeemed the soul of the poor.
The Thanksgiving Psahru 403
whom they planned to destroy,
shedding his blood for thy service.
But they knew not that from thee are my steps.
They made me an object of contempt and reproach
in the mouth of all who seek deceit
But thou, my God, didst succor the soul of the humble and poor
from the hand that was too strong for him;
thou didst redeem my soul from the hand of the mighty,
and didst not let me be frightened by their taunts
into forsaking thy service for fear of destruction by the wicked.
V (iii.6-15)
. . . they made my life a ship on the deep,
and like a fortified city before them.
I am in distress
like a woman in travail with her firstborn,
when her pangs come,
and grievous pain on her birth-stool,
causing torture in the crucible of the pregnant one;
for sons have come to the waves of death,
and she who conceived a man suffers in her pains;
for in the waves of death she gives birth to a man-child;
with pains of Sheol he bursts forth
from the crucible of the pregnant one,
a wonderful counselor with his power;
yes, a man comes forth from the waves.
In her who conceived him, all the waves came quickly,
swift pains also when they were bom
and horror for those who conceived them.
When he was bom all the pangs came in the crucible of the pregnant
one.
She who conceived nought had grievous pain,
and waves of the pit with all horrors.
The foundations of the wall are broken
like a ship on the face of the waters;
the clouds sound with a noise of tumult,
the dwellers on earth are like those who go down to the seas,
terrified by the noise of the waters.
4 04 The Dead Sea Scrolls
All their wise men are like sailors on the deep,
for all their wisdom is confounded by the noise of the seas,
when the depths boil above the springs of water.
VI (iii.19-30)
I thank thee, O Lord,
because thou hast redeemed my soul from the pit;
from the Sheol of Abaddon
thou hast brought me up to an eternal height,
and I walk in an unsearchable plain.
I know that there is hope
for him whom thou hast formed from the dust
for an eternal company.
Thou hast purified the perverse spirit of a great sin,
to stand in his place with the army of the holy ones,
and to come together with the congregation of the sons of heaven.
Thou hast cast for man an eternal lot
with the spirits of knowledge,
to praise thy name together in joyful song
and to recount thy wonders in the presence of all thy works.
But I, a thing formed of clay, what am I?
A thing kneaded with water, for whom have I value,
and what strength have I?
For I took my stand in the border of wickedness,
and with the hapless in their lot;
but the poor man’s soul was in dread, with great confusion;
engulfing destruction accompanied my steps;
when all the snares of the pit were opened,
and all the nets of wickedness were spread,
the seine of the hapless also on the face of the water,
when all the arrows of the pit flew, not turning aside,
and were loosed beyond hope;
when the line fell on judgment,
and the lot of anger on those who were forsaken;
a molten mass of wrath on dissemblers,
and a period of wrath for all worthlessness.
The cords of death surrounded me inescapably;
the torrents of Belial flowed over all the high banks.
The Thanksgiving Psalms
Like a fire eating into all their springs,
destroying every green or dry tree in their channels,
it rushes about with flashes of flame,
until all who drink of them are no more;
into the walls of clay it eats,
and into the platform of the dry land.
The foundations of the mountains are given to the flames;
the roots of flint become torrents of pitch.
It devours to the great abyss;
the torrents of Belial burst into Abaddon;
the sentient beings of the abyss roar
with the noise of the eruptions of mire.
The earth cries aloud at the ruin
which has been wrought in the world;
all its sentient beings shout;
all who are upon it go mad
and melt in utter ruin.
For God thunders with the noise of his might,
and his holy dwelling re-echoes with his glorious truth;
die host of heaven utter their voice;
the eternal foundations melt and shake;
and the war of the mighty ones of heaven
rushes about in the world and turns not back
until the full end decreed forever;
and there is nothing like it
VII (iv.8-37)
For they have become loathsome to themselves,
and do not regard me when thou dost work mightily in me;
for they drive me from my land like a bird from its nest,
and all my neighbors and friends are driven far from me;
they have regarded me as a broken vessel.
But they are interpreters of lies and seers of deceit;
they devised baseness against me,
exchanging thy law, which thou didst cut into my heart,
for smooth tilings for thy people.
They withheld the draught of knowledge from the thirsty,
and for their thirst made them drink vinegar;
405
406 The Dead Sea Scrolls
so that God beheld their error,
going mad at their feasts,
being taken in their nets.
But thou, O God, dost despise every purpose of Belial;
it is thy counsel that will stand,
and the purpose of thy heart that is established forever.
But they are hapless, they plan devices of Belial;
they seek thee with a double heart,
and are not established in thy truth.
A root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit is in their plans,
and with the stubbornness of their hearts they go about.
They have sought thee among idols,
and have set the stumbling block of their iniquity before their face*.
They have come to seek thee
following the directions of false prophets, enticed by enor.
But they with strange lips
and an alien tongue speak to thy people,
making foolish by deceit all their works.
For they did not heed thy instruction;
they did not listen to thy word;
for they said of the vision of knowledge, “It is not right,"
and of the way of thy heart, “It is not that."
But thou, O God, wilt answer them,
judging them in thy power
according to their idols and their many transgressions,
that they may be taken in their plans,
in which they are estranged from thy covenant
Thou wilt cut off in judgment all men of deceit,
and seers of error will be found no more;
for there is no foolishness in all thy works
or deceit in the devices of thy heart.
Those who please thee will stand before thee forever,
those who walk in the way of thy heart will be established to eternity.
As for me, while leaning upon thee
I will rise and stand up against those who despise me,
and my hand will be against all who scorn me;
for they do not regard me,
though thou didst work mightily in me
and didst appear to me in thy strength to enlighten them;
The Thanksgiving Psalms 407
thou didst not plaster with shame
the faces of all those who consulted me,
who assembled for thy covenant and heard me,
those who walk in the way of thy heart
and present themselves to thee in the company of the holy ones.
But thou wilt bring forth their judgment forever,
and truth with equity.
Thou wilt not mislead them by the hand of the hapless,
according to their plotting against them;
but wilt put the fear of them on thy people,
a shattering for all the peoples of the lands,
to cut off in judgment all transgressors of thy words.
By me thou hast enlightened the faces of many,
and hast made them strong until they were numberless;
for thou hast given me knowledge of thy wondrous mysteries,
and in thy wondrous company thou hast wrought powerfully with me;
thou hast wrought wondrously in the presence of many,
for the sake of thy glory
and to make known to all the living thy mighty works.
Who that is flesh could do aught like this,
what thing formed of clay could do such wonders?
For man lives in iniquity from the womb,
and in faithless guilt to old age.
I know that righteousness does not belong to a man,
nor to a son of man blamelessness of conduct;
to the Most High God belong all works of righteousness,
A man’s way is not established
except by the spirit which God created for him,
to make blameless a way for the sons of man,
that they may know all his works
in the might of his power and the greatness of his mercy
to all the sons of his good pleasure.
As for me, shaking and trembling have seized me,
and all my bones are broken;
my heart melts like wax before the fire,
and my knees go like water falling on a slope.
For I remember my guilty deeds,
together with the faithlessness of my fathers,
whan the wicked rose against thy covenant.
408 The Dead Sea Scrolls
the hapless against thy word.
Then I said, “For my transgression
I am left outside of thy covenant’
But when I remembered the strength of thy hand,
together with the abundance of thy mercy,
I rose and stood up, and my spirit became strong,
standing firm before affliction;
for I leaned on thy steadfast love
and thy abundant mercy.
VIII (v.7-15)
Thou didst put me in a dwelling with many fishermen,
spreaders of nets on the face of the water,
and hunters for the sons of error;
and there for judgment thou didst establish me.
A counsel of truth thou didst make strong in my heart,
and water of the covenant for those who seek it
Thou didst shut the mouth of lions,
whose teeth are like swords
and their fangs like sharp spears;
the poison of serpents, all their thoughts are to seize;
they are many, but they do not open their mouths against me.
For thou, my God, hast hidden me
before the sons of man.
Thy law is hidden in my heart,
until the time when thy salvation will be revealed to me.
For when my soul was in distress thou didst not forsake me,
but didst hear my cry in the bitterness of my souL
Thou hast judged my sorrow; thou hast regarded my groaning;
and thou hast rescued the life of the afflicted man in the den of Hons,
who sharpened their tongues like a sword;
for thou, my God, didst shut their teeth,
lest they tear the life of the afflicted and poor man;
thou didst gather in their tongue, like a sword into its scabbard,
so that the life of thy servant was not destroyed.
The Thanksgiving Psalms
409
IX (vi.7-10)
I am comforted concerning the tumult of the people
and concerning the uproar of kingdoms,
when they assemble against my counsel,
which thou wilt exalt for a little while,
a reviving among thy people
and a remnant in thy inheritance;
and thou didst purify them, cleansing them of guilt
For all their works are wrought in thy truth,
and in thy steadfast love thou wilt judge them,
in wealth of mercy and abundance of pardon,
directing them according to thy words
and according to the uprightness of thy truth,
establishing them in thy counsel for thy glory.
X (vii.2—5)
My foot sank in the mire;
my eyes turned away from seeing evil,
my ears from hearing of blood;
my heart was appalled at the thought of evil;
for the worthlessness of a people is shown by the impulse of their being.
All Ac walls of my building were broken;
my bones were out of joint;
they were shaken like a ship in the raging of a storm;
my heart was utterly distraught;
and a spirit of confusion confounded me
because of the ruin wrought by their transgression.
XI (vii.6-9, 11-15)
I than k thee, O Lord, because thou hast sustained me with thy strength
and hast shed abroad thy Holy Spirit in me;
I shall not be moved.
Thou hast strengthened me in the face of the battles of wickedness;
in all the ruin they wrought thou didst not turn in dismay from thy
covenant.
4 10 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Thou hast made me like a strong tower,
like a high wall;
thou hast established my building on a rock,
with eternal bases as my foundation,
and all my walls as a tested wall
that will not be shaken.
For the lying lips shall be dumb;
for all who attack me for judgment thou wilt condemn,
separating by me the righteous from the wicked.
For thou knowest every purpose of action
and perceivest every answer of the tongue.
Thou hast established my heart in thy teachings and in thy truth,
to direct my steps to the paths of righteousness,
that I might walk before thee in the region of life,
to the path of glory and peace.
XII (vii.26-32)
I thank thee, O Lord, because thou hast made me wise in thy truth
and in thy wondrous mysteries hast given me knowledge;
in thy steadfast love for a sinful man,
in the abundance of thy mercy for one whose heart is perverted.
Who is like thee among the gods, O Lord?
Who is like thy truth?
Who will be justified before thee when he is judged?
There is no spirit that can reply to thy accusation,
and none is able to stand before thy wrath.
But all the sons of thy truth thou wilt bring in pardon before thee,
cleansing them from their transgressions
in the abundance of thy goodness and the greatness of thy mercy,
to make them stand before thee to the ages of eternity.
For the Eternal God art thou,
and all thy ways are established forever and ever,
and there is none besides thee.
What is a man of nought, who has only a breath,
to consider thy wondrous works?
The Thanksgiving Psalms
411
XIII (viii.4-12)
I thank thee, O Lord, because thou hast put me
at a source of flowing streams in dry ground,
a spring of water in a land of drought,
channels watering a garden of delight,
a place of cedar and acacia,
together with pine for thy glory,
trees of life in a fount of mystery,
hidden amid all trees that drink water.
They shall put forth a branch for an eternal planting,
taking root before they sprout
They shall send out their roots to the stream;
its stump shall be exposed to the living water;
and it shall become an eternal source.
When there is a branch on it,
all the beasts of the forest will feed on it;
its stump will be trampled by all that pass by,
its branches by every winged bird;
and all the springs of water shall rise against it
For in their planting they go astray,
and do not send out a root to the stream.
But he who causes a holy branch
to sprout for a planting of truth
is hiding his mystery, without its being thought of;
without its being known, he is sealing it up.
And thou, O God, hast put a hedge about its fruit
in the mystery of mighty men of valor and holy spirit*;
and a flame of fire turning every way.
XIV (ix.6-13)
As for me, from ruin to devastation,
from pain to wounding, from pangs to breaking,
my soul is bowed down among thy wonders,
and thou hast not rejected me in thy steadfast love;
from period to period my soul delights
in the multitude of thy mercies.
412 The Dead Sea Scrolls
I will reply with a word to those who would confound me,
with a rebuke to those cast down because of me;
I will condemn his decision, but thy judgment I will vindicate.
For I know of thy truth, and I will choose my judgment;
I accept my afflictions, because I hope for thy steadfast love.
Thou hast put a supplication in the mouth of thy servant,
and hast not rebuked my life;
my peace-offerings thou hast not rejected,
and hast not forsaken my hope;
and before the stroke thou hast made my spirit stand.
For thou hast established my spirit and knowest my thought;
in my distress thou hast comforted me,
and in pardon I delight;
and I repent of former transgression.
XV (ix.31-36)
From my youth thou hast appeared to me in thy just wisdom,
and with firm truth thou hast sustained me
With thy Holy Spirit thou dost delight me,
and to this day thou dost lead me.
Thy righteous rebuke is with my thoughts,
and the guarding of thy peace to deliver my soul;
abundance of pardon with my steps,
and a multitude of mercies when thou dost enter into judgment with
me;
and to old age thou wilt support me.
For my father does not know me,
and my mother against thee has forsaken me;
but thou art a Father to all the sons of thy truth;
thou rejoicest over them
like her who has compassion on her sucking child;
and like a foster father thou wilt sustain in thy bosom
all that thou hast made.
XVI (13-14)
For what is man? He is earth,
a cut-off bit of clay, and to dust is his return;
The Thanksgiving Psalms
but thou dost make him wise in wonders like these,
and of thy true counsel thou wilt give him knowledge.
But I am dust and ashes.
What can I plan unless thou hast desired it,
and what can I think apart from thy will?
What can I accomplish unless thou hast established me,
and how can I be wise unless thou hast planned for me?
What shall I speak unless thou openest my mouth,
and how should I reply if thou didst not make me wise?
Behold, thou art Prince of gods and King of the honored ones,
Lord of every spirit and Ruler over every work.
Apart from thee nothing is done;
it is not known without thy will.
There is none besides thee,
and there is none with thee in strength;
there is nothing over against thy glory,
and thy power has no price.
Who among all thy wondrous, great works
is able to stand before thy glory?
What then is he who returns to his dust,
that he should prevail against thee?
For thy glory alone thou hast made all these.
Blessed art thou, my Lord, God of mercyl
XVI (xi.3-12)
I thank thee, O Lord, because thou hast done wondrously with dust;
with a thing formed of clay thou hast done powerfully.
Confessing, confessing, what am I?
For thou hast given me knowledge of thy true counsel
and hast made me wise by thy wondrous works.
Thou hast put praises in my mouth
and on my tongue rejoicing,
and the circumcising of my lips in a place of loud praise,
that I may sing of thy steadfast love
and meditate on thy power all the day.
Continually I will bless thy name
and tell of thy glory among the sons of man;
in the abundance of thy goodness my soul sha ll delight;
414 The Dead Sea Scrolls
for I know that what thou sayest is truth,
and in thy hand is righteousness;
in thy purpose is all knowledge,
and in thy strength all power;
and all glory is with thee.
In thy wrath are all judgments of affliction;
in thy goodness is abundance of pardon
and mercy for all the sons of tby good pleasure.
For thou hast given them knowledge of thy true counsel
and made them wise in thy wondrous mysteries.
For thy glory's sake thou hast cleansed man from transgression,
to consecrate himself to thee
from all unclean abominations and guilt of unfaithfulness;
to unite himself with the sons of thy truth
and to be in the same lot with thy holy ones.
XVII (xii.4-12)
I will praise Ay name among those who fear thee,
with songs of thanksgiving and prayer,
lying prostrate and making supplication
continually from period to period;
with the coming in of light from its dwelling,
in the circuits of day in its fixed order,
according to the decrees of the great luminary,
at the turn of evening and the outgoing of light,
at the beginning of the dominion of darkness,
at the appointed time of night in its circuit,
at the turn of rooming, and the period of its ingathering
to its dwelling before the light,
at the outgoing of night and the coming in of day,
continually in all the generations of time,
the foundations of a period and the circuit of seasons
in their fixed order and with their signs for all their dominion,
in a fixed order made firm by the mouth of God,
by the testimony of him who is.
And it shall be, and there is no other,
and besides it there has not been.
The Thanksgiving Psalms
and shall not ever be;
for the God of knowledge established it,
and there is no other with him.
But I am wise; I know thee, my God;
by the spirit thou didst put in me, which is trustworthy,
I have listened to thy wondrous counsel.
4*5
Bibliography
Note: While this bibliography is selective, many significant contributions
have undoubtedly been omitted. Among these are reviews, which are some¬
times quite important. Many relatively unimportant items are here included
because reference is made to them in one way or another in this book,
few very recent publications that were not available in time to be used
the preparation of the book are noted in order to make the bibliography
up to date as possible.
AER
ALBO
AO
B
BA
BARB
BASOR
BASOR—SS
BHT
BIES
BJRL
BO
CBC
CRATBL
CS
ET
ETL
FF
ABBREVIATIONS
American Ecclesiastical Review
Analecta Lovanlensia Biblica et Orientalia
Archie OrienUdni
Biblica
Biblical Archaeologist
Bulletin de la classe des lettres et des sciences morales de
TAcacMmie Royale de Belgique
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research — Sup¬
plementary Studies
Beitrdge zur historischen Theologie
Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society
Bulletin of the John Rylands Library
Bibliotheca Orientalis
Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Comptes rendus des stances de VAcadtemie des Inscriptions et
Belles-Lettres
Cahiers Sioniens
Evangelische Theologie
Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses
Forschungen und Fortschritte
4x9
B
The Dead Sea Scrolls
Harvard Theological Review
Hebrew Union College Annual
Israel Exploration Journal
Illustrated London News
Journal of Biblical Literature
Journal of Jewish Studies
Jewish Quarterly Review
Journal of Theological Studies
La Nouvele CHS
Nouvelle revue thtologique
New Testament Studies
Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research
Palestine Exploration Quarterly
Revue biblique
Revue de Thlstoire des religions
Recherches de science religieuse
Scripture
Theologische Literoturzeitung
Theologische Rundschau
Theologische Zeitschrift
Verbum Domini
Vetus Testamentum
Zeitschrift filr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft
Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen GeseUschaft
Zeitschrift ftir Religions- und Geistesgeschichte
Zeitschrift fiir Theologie und Kirche
Albright, W. F. "On the Date of the Scrolls from ‘Ain Feshkha and the Nash
Papyrus." BASOR, October 1949, pp. 10-19-
-. “Comments on Dr. Lacheman’s Reply and the ScrollsBASOR,
December 1949, pp. 16-17*
-. "Are the 'Ain Feshkha Scrolls a Hoax?" JQR, 1949 , pp. 41 - 49 .
-. "The Chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls." BASOR—SS, 1951, pp.
57-60.
-. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” The American Scholar, i 95 *“ 53 > PP- 77 - 8 5.
Arbez, E. P. “Notes on the New Hebrew Mss." CBC, 1950, pp. 173-89*
-. “The New Hebrew Manuscripts.” AER, 1950, pp. 25-36, 137 ~ 4 S
196-206.
Audet, J. P. "Affinity litt&aires et doctrinales du “Manuel de Discipline.’ ”
RB, 1952, pp. 219-38; 1953 . PP- 41-82.
Avi-Yonah, M. “The 'War of the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness'
and Maccabean Warfare." IEJ, 1952, pp. 1-5.
Bardtke, H. Die Handschriftenfunde am Toten Meet. Berlin: Evangelische
Haupt-Bibelgesellschaft, 1952.
-. “Bemerkungen zu den beiden Texten a us dem Bar Kochba-Auf-
stand.” ThLZ, 1954, cols. 295-303.
420
HTR
HUCA
IEJ
ILN
JBL
JJS
JQR
JTS
NC
NRT
NTS
PAAJR
PEQ
RB
RHR
RSR
S
ThLZ
TR
TZ
VD
VT
ZAW
ZDMG
ZRG
ZTK
Bibliography 421
Barth6Iemy, D. "Le grand rouleau d’Isale trouv6 prfo de la Mer Morte." RB,
J 95 °» PP- 53 *- 49 -
-. “Notes en marge de publications recents sur les manuscrits de Qum-
ran.” RB, 1952, pp. 187-218.
-. "Red&ouverte d’un chaJuon manquant de lTiistoire de la Septant”
RB, 1953 , PP- I&-29.
Bauchet, J. M. P., and Sutcliffe, E. F. “The Sectarian Document." S, 1949,
pp. 7 ^ 79 -
-. "Note sur lcs variantes de sens d’Isale 42 et 43 dans le manuscrit
du d6scrt do Juda." NRT, 1949, pp. 3056.
-. “Notes on the Recently-Found Hebrew Manuscripts." S, 1949 * PP-
115-17-
-. “The Newly Discovered Scrolls of the Judean Desert.” CBC, 1949.
pp. 308-15-
-. “A Note on the Orthography of the Dead Sea MSS.” CBC, 1950, p. 68.
-. “Transcription and Translation of Megilloth Cenuzoth B. Plate
VL" CBC, 1950, pp. 458 - 59 -
-. “Transcription and Translation of a Psalm from Sukenik’s Dead Sea
Scroll.” CBC, 1950, pp- 331 - 35 -
-. "A Note on the Scroll of Thanksgiving Songs.” S, 1951, pp. 277L
Baumgarten, J. M. “Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of
the Dead Sea (Qumr 2 n) Scrolls.” HTR, 1953. PP- i 4 i~ 59 -
Baumgartner, W. “Der paliistinische Handschriftenfund.” TR, 1948/49,
pp- 329 - 46 .
-. “Die hebrkischen und armaischen Handschriften a us Palastina.
TL, 1951 , PP- 391 - 94 -
-. “Der Palastinische Handschriftenfund." TR, 1951, pp. 97-154.
-. “Die Bedeutung der Hohlenfunde a us Palastina fiir die Theologie."
Schweizerische Theologische Umschau, 1954, pp. 49-63-
Beegle, D. “Proper Names in the New Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR, October 1951,
pp. 28-30.
Bellinger, L. "Report upon a Fragment of Cloth from the Dead Sea Scroll
Cave.” BASOR, April 1950, pp. 9-11.
Birnbaum, S. A. "Tho Date of the Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR, Februaiy 1949 ,
PP- 33 - 35 -
-. “The Date of the Habakkuk Cave Scroll." JBL, 1949, pp. 161-B8.
-. "The Date of the Covenant Scroll." PEQ, 1949. PP- 14 °~ 47 -
-. “The Dates of the Cave Scrolls.” BASOR, October 1949, pp. 20-22.
-."The Leviticus Fragments from the Cave." BASOR, April 1950,
pp. 20-27.
-. "How Old Axe the Cave Manuscripts? A Palaeographical Discussion.”
VT, 1951, pp. 91-109.
-. “Notes on the Internal and Archaeological Evidence Concerning the
Cave Scrolls.” JBL, 1951, pp. 227-32.
-. “The Date of the Hymns Scroll." PEQ, 1952, pp. 94-103-
-. "A Fragment of an Unknown Script." PEQ, 195a. pp-118-20.
42 * The Dead Sea Scrolls
Black, M. “The Dating of the New Hebrew Scrolls on Internal Evidence. -
JJS, 1949 . P- * 99 -
Bonsirven, J. “Revolution dans llxistoire des origines chr&iennes?" Etudes,
1951 . PP-« 3 -* 8 .
Braun, F. M. "L'arrifcre-fond judaique du quatri&ne evangfle et la Commu-
naute de l’Alliance.” RB, 1955, pp. 5 “ 44 -
Brownlee, W.H. ‘The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll.'’ BASOR, December
1948, pp. 8-18.
-. “Further Light on Habakkuk.” BASOR, April 1949. pp- 9 “i<>-
-. “Further Corrections of the Translation of the Habakkuk Scroll."
BASOR, December 1949, pp. 14-16.
"The Original Height of the Dead Sea Habakkuk Scroll" BASOR,
April 1950, pp. 7 - 9 -
-. “A Comparison of the Covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls with
Pre-Christian Jewish Sects." BA, 1950, pp. 50-72.
-. “Excerpts from the Translation of the Dead Sea Manual of Disci¬
pline." BASOR, February 1951, pp. 8-13.
“Light on the Manual of Discipline (DSD) from the Book of Jubi¬
lees." BASOR, October 1951, pp. 30 ~ 3 *-
-. “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline." BASOR—SS, 1951.
The Text of Isaiah VI 13 in the Light of DSIa." VT, 1951, pp.
296-98.
-. "Biblical Interpretation among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls."
BA, 1951, pp- 54 - 76 -
"Benediction from the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline." Duke Di¬
vinity School Bulletin, 1952, p. 2.
-. "The Historical Allusions of the Dead Sea Habakkuk Midrash.’
BASOR, April 1952, pp. 10-20.
The Manuscripts of Isaiah from which DSIa was Copied." BASOR,
October 1952, pp. 16-21.
“The Cross of Christ in the Light of Ancient Scrolls." The United
Presbyterian, November 20, 1953, pp. 6, 7, n; December 7, p. ll; De¬
cember 14, pp. 7-8; December 21, pp. 12-13; December 28, pp. 10-11.
The Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls.” BASOR, December
1953 . PP- 8 - 15 -
-. “Emendations of the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and Some
Notes Concerning the Habakkuk Midrash.” JQR, 1954, pp. 141-58.
-. The Servant of the Lord in the Qumran Scrolls. II.” BASOR, Oc¬
tober 1954, pp. 33-38.
Burrows, M. “The Contents and Significance of the Manuscripts," BA, 1948,
pp. 57-61.
-. "Variant Readings in the Isaiah Manuscript" BASOR, October
1948, pp. 16-24; February 1949, pp. 24-32.
'Orthography, Morphology, and Syntax of the St Mark’s Isaiah Man¬
uscript." JBL, 1949, pp. 195-211.
Bibliography 423
-. “A Note on the Recently Discovered Manuscripts." JQR, 1949, pp.
51 - 56 .
-. “The Discipline Manual of the Judaean Covenanters.” Oudtesta-
mentische Studien, 1950, pp. 156-92.
-. The Dead Sea Scrolls of St. Mark’s Monastery. New Haven: Ameri¬
can Schools of Oriental Research, volume I, 1950; volume II, fascicle a,
1951 -
-. “The Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls." BASOR, April 1951, pp. 4-6.
-. “Concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls.” JQR, 1951. PP- 105-32.
-. “Wow and Y odh in the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll (DSIa)." BASOR,
December 1951, pp. 18-20.
-. "The Meaning of 'Sr ’mr in DSH." VT, 1952, pp. 255-60.
Chamberlain, J. V. "Another Qumran Thanksgiving Psalm." JNES, 1955,
pp. 32-41.
Collier, D. “New Radiocarbon Method for Dating the Past” BA, 1951,
pp. 25-28.
Coppens, J. “D6couverte de nouveaux manuscrits de la Bible." ETL, 1949,
PP- 309-12.
-. "Oh en est Ie probl&ne des manuscrits r6cemmcnt d&ouverts dans
le ddscrt de Juda?” ALBO, 1951, pp. 14-18.
-. “Les manuscrits du desert de Juda." ALBO, 1951-
-. “Les manuscrits du desert de Juda.” ETL, 1950, pp. 326-29, 580-
582; 1952, pp. 399 - 403 -
-. “D^couverte de nouveaux manuscrits." ETL, 1952, pp. 207 f.
Cross, F. M. “The Newly Discovered Scrolls in the Hebrew University Mu¬
seum in Jerusalem.” BA 1949 . PP- 3 &“ 46 -
-. “A New Qumran Biblical Fragment Related to the Original Hebrew
Underlying the SeptuagJnt." BASOR, December 1953, pp. 15-26.
-. “The Manuscripts of the Dead Sea Caves.” BA 1954 . PP- 2-21.
Crowfoot, G. M. “Linen Textiles from the Cave of Ain Feshkha in the Jordan
Valley." PEQ, 1951, pp. 5-31-
Cullmann, O. “Die neuentdeckten Qumrantexte und das Judenchristentum
der Pseudoklementinen.” Neutestamentliche Studien fur Rudolf Bultmann
(Zeitschrift fiXr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Beiheft 21), Berlin:
TOpelman, pp. 35-51.
Davies, W.D. “ “Knowledge’ in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Matthew 11:25-
30" HTR, 1953, pp. 113-39. , , ... .
Delcor, M. Les Manuscrits de la Met Morte. Essai sur le Midrash dHabacuc
(Lectio Dioina 7). Paris: Cerf, 1951.
-. “Le Midrash dHabacuc." RB, 1951, pp. 521 - 49 -
-. “Le Sacerdoce, les lieux de culte, les rites et les f&es dans les docu¬
ments de Qumr 4 n.” RHR, 1953, pp. 5 - 41 -
del Medico, H. E. “La D^couverte d'apocryphes de l’Anrien Testament dans
le Desert de Jud6e." RSR, 1948, pp. 589-92.
-. Deux Manuscrits hSbreux de la Mer Morte. Paris: Geuthner, 1951.
424 Tte Dead Sea Scrolls
del Medico, H. E. “Peut-on dater les Manuscrits de la Mcr Morte?" Dieu
Vivant, 1951, pp. 119-26.
-. "Leg Ess&iiens dans 1’oeuvre de Flavius Josdphe " Byzantinodavica,
1052-53. PP- i“45. 189-226.
Detaye, C. "Le Cadre historique du Midrash dHabacuc. ETL, 1954. PP-
323—43.
de Vaux, R. "Les Manuscrits hebreux du d6sert de Juda." la Vie InteUcc-
tuelle, 1949, pp. 583-95- t , . ... ,
_, with G. L. Harding. “La Cachette des anciens manuscrits hebreux.
CRAIBL, 1949, pp. 99-102.
-. "Post-scriptum. La cachette des manuscrits hebreux. KB, 1949, pp.
*34“3 7-
-. "La Grotte des manuscrits hebreux." RB, 1949, pp. 586-609.
"A propos des manuscrits de la Mcr Morte." RB, 1950, pp- 417-
429 -
"Les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte ct les origines chr^tiennes" La Vie
InteUectueUe, 1951, pp. 60-70.
"Fouille au Khirbet Qumr&n." RB, 1953, pp- 83-106.
267.
-. ruuiuo au juiuuti —1 rr -
"Les Grottes de Murabba'at et leurs documents." RB, 1953, pp. 245-
"Quelques Textes hebreux de Murabba'at" RB, 1953, pp. 268-
-. "Exploration de la region de Qumrin." RB, 1953, PP- 54o-£i-
_. "Fouilles de Khirbet Qumran. Rapport preiiminaire sur la deuxi&me
campagne." RB, 1954. PP- 193-236.
Diringer, D. "Early Hebrew Script Versus Square Hebrew Script (in Essays
and Studies Presented to Stanley Arthur Cook). London: Taylor, 1950,
pp- 35-49-
-. "Early Hebrew Writing." BA, 1950, pp- 74-95-
Driver, G. K “The Hebrew Manuscripts." JQR, 1949. PP-127~34-
-. "New Hebrew Manuscripts." JQR, 1950, pp. 359-72.
-. New Hebrew Scrolls. Hibbert Journal, 1950, pp. 11-21.
-. "Hebrew Scrolls." JTS, 1951, pp. 17-30.
-. The Hebrew Scrolls from the Neighbourhood of Jericho and the
Dead Sea. London: Oxford University Press, 1951.
-. "Once Again the Judaean Scrolls." JQR, 1953, pp. 1-20.
Dupont-Sommer, A. Observations sur le Commentate dHabacuc dtcouvert
pr&s de la Mer Morte. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1950.
--. "Le ‘Commentaire dHabacuc’ d&xmvert pr£s de la Mer Morte:
Traduction et notes." RHR, 1950, pp. 129-71.
-. "La Ttegle' de la Communaut6 de la Nouvelle Alliance: extraits tra-
duits et comment^." RHR, 1950, pp. 5-21.
-. "Le Commentaire dHabacuc d^couvert pr6s de la Mer Morte."
CRAIBL, 1950, pp. 198-99.
-. "Lumi&es nouvelles sur les Manuscrits d&ouverts pr&s de la Mer
Morte." NC, 1950, pp- 330-35-
Bibliography 425
-. Observations sur le Manuel de Discipline <M concert prfo de la Mer
Morte. (Communication lue decant TAcadhnie des Inscriptions.) Paris:
Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1951.
-. "Le 'Manuel de Discipline’ d6couvert pr^s de la Mer Morte. CRAIBL,
195 L PP- 189-200.
-. “Le Maitre de Justice fut-il mis b. mortT VT, 1951, pp. 200-215.
-. “Contribution & l’exlg&se du Manuel de Discipline x 1-8." VT, 1952,
pp. 229-43.
-. "Encore sur le mot 'bwt dans DSH xi 6." VT, 1952, pp. 276-78.
-. “La Saintet6 du signe "noun" dans le Manuel de Discipline.” BARB,
* 95 *. PP- 184-93-
-. “I* Testament de Levi (XVII-XVIII) et la secte juive de l'Alliance.”
Semitica. 1952, pp. 33-53.
-. "D6couvertes nouvelles dans le Desert do Juda.” Revue de la PensSe
Juive, 1952, pp. 66-77.
-. Apergus prilhninaircs sur les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris:
Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1950. (English translation, The Dead Sea Scrolls,
Oxford: Blackwell, 1952.)
-. Nouveaux apergus sur les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte. Paris: Adrien-
Maisonneuve, 1953. (English translation: The Jewish Sect of Qumran
and the Essenes, New Studies on the Dead Sea Scrolls, London: Vallentine,
Mitchell & Co., 1954-)
-. "Quelques remarques sur le Commentaire dHabacuc, b propos d’un
livre r6cent." VT, 1955, pp. 1x3-29.
Eissfeldt, O. “Die Bcdeutung der 1947 in Palastina aufgefundenen alten
hebraischen und aramaischen Handschriften." FF, 1949, pp. 196-200.
-. “Nachtrag zu dem Aufsatz iiber die 1947 gefundenen hebraischen
Handschriften." FF, 1949, p. 302-
-. “Zahl und Art dcr in den Rollen enthaltenen Schrfftwerke; ihre
Entstehungszeit und ihre religionsgcschichtliche Einordnung.” ThLZ,
1949, cols. 95-98.
-. “Varianten der Jesaia-Rolle." ThLZ, 1949, cols. 221-26.
1 1 . ... “Ansetzung der Rollen nach paliiographischen Kriterien." T hLZ ,
1949, cols. 226-28.
-. “VorlSufige Ergebnisse einer im Friihjahr 1949 vorgenommenen Un-
tersuchung der Fundhohle." ThLZ, 1949. col. 228.
-. "Neue Nachrichten iiber die im Friihjahr 1949 vorgenommenen
Untersuchung der Fundhohle.” ThLZ, 1949, cols. 595 ~ 97 -
-. “Der Anlass zur Entdeckung der Hohle und ihr ahnliche Vorgange
aus alterer Zeit." ThLZ, 1949, 2 cols. 597-600.
-. "Die Bestimmung der aramaisch gescliriebenen Rolle als das apok-
ryphe Lamech-Buch." ThLZ, 1950, cols. 23-26
--. “Hauptmann Philippe Lippens’ Bericht fiber die Wiederentdeckung
der Fundhohle." ThLZ, 1950, cols. 145-51.
-. ~Varioe lectiones rotulorum manu scriptorum anno 1947 prope Mare
Mortuum repertorum ad Jes 1-66 et Hab 2-2 pertinentes." Stuttgart, 195 *
42 0 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Eissfeldt, 0 . “Zeilenfifflung.” VT, 1952. PP- * 7 ~ 9 *- „
EUiger, K. “Studien zum Habakuk-Kommentar vom Toten Meer. Bril 15,
F6vriCT, J. G. “La Tactique hell6nistique dans un texte de 'Ayin Fashkah."
Semitica, 1950, pp. 53 - 8 *- ,, , , .
_. "La Date des textes de *Ayin Fashkah en Venture pal6oh6braique.
Journal Asiatique, 1951. PP- 275-82.
Filson, F. V. "New Fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls. BA, 1949 . PP- 99 “
100.
_. "Some Recent Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls." BA, 1950. PP- 96-99-
Flusser, D. “The Connection Between the Apocryphal Execusio Isoiae and
the Dead Sea Scrolls." BIES, 1952. pp-28-46.
_, “The Apocryphal Book of Ascensio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Sect
Freedmanf D.*N. ‘TheTdouse of Absalom’ in the Habakkuk Scroll" BASOR,
April 1949 . PP- H“i 2 . , , _ . „
Ginsberg, H. L. The Hebrew University Scrolls from the Sectarian Cache.
BASOR, December 1948, pp. 19-23-
-. “Notes on the Two Published Letters to Jeshua Ben Galgolah.
BASOR, October 1953, pp. 25-27-
Goossens, R. “Onias le Juste, le Messie de la Nouvelle Alliance, lapid6 &
J6rusalem en 65 av. JC." NC, 1950, pp. 33 &~ 53 -
_. "L'Etat actuel des recherches sur les Manuscrits de la Mer Morte
et sur la Secte de la Nouvelle Alliance.” NC, 1950, pp. 634-71.
-. “Les Elements messianiques des traditions sur Onias le Juste, chez
Jos&phe et dans le Talmud.” BARB, 50, pp. 44 »“ 89 -
_. "La Secte juive de la Nouvelle Alliance et les origines chr&iennes.”
Revue de T University de Bruxelles, 1951, pp. 399 - 435 -
-. “Du Nouveau sur les origines chr^tiennes.” Le Flambeau, 1951,
pp. 1-40.
-. “La Secte de la Nouvelle Alliance et les Ess 6 niens.” Le Flambeau,
1952, pp. 145 - 54 - ,
-. “Les Kittim du Commentaire dHabacuc. NC, 1952, pp. 137-70.
“Le Vocabulaire du Manuel de Discipline.” NC, 1952, pp. 297-99.
__ . . . . . • n . 1 t ft p n. M xrr
Gottstein, M. H. “Bible Quotations in die Sectarian Dead Sea Scrolls.” VT,
1953 . PP- 79 - 82 . ( , fw
-. "A DSS Biblical Variant in a Medieval Treatise. VT, 1953 . PP-
187-88.
-. “Studies in the Language of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” JJS, 1953, pp.
104-107.
-. “Die Jesaia-Rolle im Lichte von Peschitta und Tar gum.” B, 1954, pp.
5 »- 7 »-
“Anti-Essene Traits in the Dead Sea Scrolls.” VT, 1954. PP- Mi- 47 -
Grossouw, W. “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament.” Studio Catho-
tea, 195 *. PP- 289-99; x 95 2 . pp. 1-8.
Bibliography 427
Guillaume, A. “Mt 27, 46 in the Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.’' PEQ, 195 *.
pp. 78-80.
-. “Les Manuscrits hdbreux." RB, 195a, pp. 182-86.
Cuindon, W. G. “Radio-active Carbon and the Dead Sea Scrolls.’* CBQ,
1951, pp. 268-75. . , ,
Habermann, A. M. ‘Edah we-'Edulh. Jerusalem: Mahbaroth le-Siphruth,
1952 *
Harding, G. L. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” PEQ, 1949, pp. 112-16.
-. “The Dead Sea Scrolls." ILN, 1949, pp. 493 ~ 95 -
-. “Khirbet Qumran and Wady Murabba'at." PEQ, 1952, pp. 104-109.
Hempel, J. “Beobachtungen an der 'syrischen’ Jesajarolle vom Toten Meer
(DSIa).” ZDMG, 1951. PP- * 38 - 73 -
Janssens, H. F. Vocabulaire du “Manuel de Discipline ." Brussels: privately
published, 1952.
Johnson, S. E. “The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline and the Jerusalem Church
of Acts." ZAW, 1954, pp. 106-20.
Kahle, P. “Die Auffindung der Rollen und ihr Ankauf. Die textkritische Be-
deutung der Jesaia-Rolle. Der Anlass fiir das Verbergen der Rollen.” ThLZ,
1949, cols. 91—94.
-. “Die Zeit der Bergung der hebraischen Handschriften in der H6hle.“
ThLZ, 1950, cols. 537-42.
-. “The Age of the Scrolls." VT, 1951, pp. 38-48.
-. Die Hebraischen Handschriften aus der Hbhle, Stuttgart: Kohlham-
mer, 1951.
-. “Zu den Handschriftenfunden aus der Hohle.” ThLZ, 1951. cols.
. 161-66.
-. “Die Gemeinde des Neuen Bundes und die hebraischen Handschrif¬
ten aus der Hdhle.” ThLZ, 1952, pp. 401—12.
-. “The Karaites and the Manuscripts from the Cave.” VT, 1953 . PP-
82—84.
-. “Die im August 1952 entdeckte Lederrolle mit dem griechischen
Text der kleinen Propheten und das Problem der Septuaginta." ThLZ,
1954, cols. 8 1 - 94 - , , _ „ „
Kan a el, B. “Notes on the Ancient Hebrew Script in the Judaean Scrolls.
BIES, 1954, pp- 48-52.
Katz, B. Z. glwy stod hmgylwt hgmozwt bm'rt yryhw. Tel Aviv: N. Tvarski,
KraeUng, C. H. “A Dead Sea Scroll Jar at the Oriental Institute.” BASOR,
February 1952. pp. 5 ~ 7 - , _ . ,,
Kuhl, C., “Schreibereigentiimlichkeiten. Bemerkungen zur JesajaroUe
(DSIa)." VT, 1952, pp. 307-33. .... __ . , t j
Kuhn, K. G. "Zur Bedcutung der neuen palastinischen Handschnftenhmde
fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft." ThLZ, 1950, cols. 81-86.
_. “Die in Palastina gefundenen hebraischen Texte und das Neue Tes¬
tament." ZTK, 1950, pp. 192-211.
428 The Dead Sea Scrolls
Kuhn, K. G. “Die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer—zum heutigen Stand Hirer
Vertiffentlichung." ET, 1951. pp- 7 * 8 -
-. “Uber den urspriinglichen Sinn des Abendmahls und sera Verhaltnis
zu dec Gemeinachaf tsmahlen der Sektmschrift" ET, 1951, PP- 508-27.
_. “Utipaatuk im Neuen Testament und die damit zusammmhangfoden
VcrsteUungen." ZTK, 1952, pp. 200-22.
_. “Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion.’* ZTK, 1952, PP- 296-
316.
-. “Les Rouleaux de Cuivre de Quim-fim." RB, 1954 . PP- 193 - 205 -
-. “Die beiden Messias Aarons und Israels." NTS, 1955, pp. 168-79.
Lacheman, E. R. “A Matter of Method in Hebrew Paleography." JQR, 1949.
PP- 1 5 ~ 39 -
-. “Reply to the Editor." BASOR, December 1949, pp. 16-17.
-. “Can Hebrew Palaeography Be Called 'Scientific'?" JQR, 1951-52.
pp. 377-85-
-. “Hebrew Palaeography Again." JQR, i 9 S 3 » PP- *x8-a*.
Lambert, G. “Les Manuscrits d6couverts dans le ddsert de Juda." NRT,
1949 . PP- 386-304, 414-16, 620-37. , .
-. “La Grotte aux manuscrits du desert de Juda. Revue GMrale
Beige, 1950, pp. 405-24-
“Les Manuscrits du d6sert de Juda." NRT, 1950, pp. 53-65, J 99 “
202, 493 - 515 ; (with G. Verm6s) 1951, pp. 385-98-
-. “Le Manuel de Discipline de la grotte do Qumrfin." NRT, 1951,
pp. 938 - 75 . nod ALBO, 1951.
-. “Les Manuscrits hdbreux de la grotte de Qumrfin." Les Etudes Clas-
siques, 1951, pp. 217-66.
“Le Mai tie de justice et la Communaut6 de l'Alliance." NRT, 1952,
pp. 259-83.
“Traduction de quelques ‘psaumes’ de Qumrfin et du posher' dTIa*
bacuc.” NRT, 1952, pp. 284-97.
Lehmann, O. H. "Materials Concerning the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls—
I, Habakkuk." PEQ, 1951, pp. 32-54-
-. "A Third Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah." JJS, 1953. PP- 38-4°-
-, with S. M. Stem. “A Legal Certificate from Bar Kochba's Days." VT,
1953. PP- 391-96.
Lieberman, S. “Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources." PAAJR,
1951. PP- 395-404-
-. “The Discipline in the So-Called Dead Sea Manual of Discipline.
JBL, 1952, pp. 199-206.
Lindblom, J. “Die Jesaja-Apokalypse in der neuen Jesajahandschrift (DSIa)."
Bulletin de la SoctttS Royale des Lettres de Lund, 1950-51, pp. 87-97.
-. “Die Ebed Jahwe-Orakel in der neuentdeckten Jesajahandschrift
(DSIa)." ZAW, 1951, pp. 235-48.
Loewinger, S. “New Corrections to the Variae Lectiones of O. EissfeldL" VT,
1954. PP- 80-87.
-. “The Variants of DSIII." VT, 1954. PP- 155-63-
Bibliography 429
Mansoor, M. “Two More New Psalms as Translated from the Dead Sea
Scrolls.’* Commentary, 1955, pp. 368-69.
Marcus, R. “Philo, Josephus and the Dead Sea yaJyad ." JBL, 1952, pp. 207-
209.
-. “Textual Notes on the Dead Sea Manual of Discipline." JNES, 1952,
pp. 205-11.
-. “A Note on the Bar Kokeba Letter from Murabba'at" JNES, 1954,
p. 51.
Martin, W. J. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (The Sixth Campbell Mor¬
gan Memorial Lecture). London: The Bookroom, Westminster Chapel,
> 954 -
Meyer, R. “Zur Sprache von ‘Ain Feschcha." ThLZ, 1950, pp. 721-26.
Michaud, H., “U11 Mythe zervanite dans un des manuscrits de Qumrfln." VT,
1 955 . PP- 137 - 47 .
Michel, A. Le Maltre de Justice Joprds les documents de la Mer Uoite, la
literature apocryphe et rabbinique. Avignon: Aubanel P£re, 1954.
Milik, J. T. “Note sui manoscritti di ‘Ain Felha.” B, 1950, pp. 73 ” 94 . 204-20.
-. “II Rotolo frammentario di Isaia.” B, 1950, pp. 246-49.
-. “Le Giarre di manoscritti della grotta del Mar Morto e delTEgitto
Tolemaico." B, 1950, pp. 504-508.
-. Duo cantici ex volumine hymnorum nuper inventum ad Mare Mor-
tum." VD, 1950, pp. 362-71.
-. “Manuale Disdplinae." VD, 1951, pp. 129-58.
-. “Nota ad volumen hymnorum Mss. Maris Mortui." VD, 195 PP
231-32.
-. “Ex discussione de Manuscriptis Maris Mortui." VD, 1951, PP
362-65.
-. “The Dead Sea Scrolls Fragment of the Book of Enoch.” B, 1951.
PP- 393-400.
-. "Elenchus textuum ex cavema Maris Mortui." VD, 1952, pp. 34 ~ 45 >
101-109.
-. “Fragments d’un midrasch de Mich6e dans les manuscrits de
Qumran.” RB, 1952, pp. 412-18.
-. “Une Lettre de Simeon bar Kokheba." RB, 1953, pp. 276-94.
-. “Une Inscription et une lettre en aram6en christo-palestioien (pi.
XVIII-XIX).” RB, 1953 . PP- 526-39-
-. “Un Contrat juif de Ian 134 apr£s Jesus-Christ." RB, 1954, pp. 182-
190.
Molin, G. “Die Rollen von en FeSha und ihre Stellung in der judischen Re-
ligionsgeschichte." Judaica, 1951, pp. 161-213.
-. Die Sohne des Lichtes, Z eit und Stellung der Hands chriften vom
Toten Meet. Vienna and Munich: Herold, 1954.
Morgenstem, J. “Hie Calendar of the Book of Jubilees, Its Origin and Its
Character." VT, 1955 . PP- 34 " 76 .
Moscati, S. I Manoscritti ebraici del deserto di Giuda. Rome: Institute per
L’Oriente, 1955.
43 o The Dead Sea Scrolls
Mowinckel, S. “Handskriftfunnct ved D^dehavet og data betydning for
teksthistorien.” Norsk teologisk tidsskrift, 1951, PP- 145 - 77 *
Mowry, L. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gospel of John. BA, 1954, pp.
MuUenburg, J. “A Qoheleth Scroll from Qumran ." BASOR, October 1954.
.. P . P —. “Fragments of Another Qumran Isaiah Scroll.” BASOR, October
Nothf M^“Eine Bemerkung zur Jesajarolle vom Toten Meer." VT, 1951, pp.
324—26. ,
NOtscher, F. "Der Handschriftenfund am Toten Meer vom Jahre 1947.
Paltistinahefte, 1950, pp. 7 -**-
-. “Entbehrliche Hapaxlegomena in Jesaia. VT, 195i» PP- 299 - 3 ° 2 -
_. “Judische Monchsgeraeinde und Ursprung des Christentums nach
den jiingst am Toten Meer aufgefundenen hebriiischen Handschriften.”
Bibel und Kirche, 1952. pp- 21-38.
O’Callaghan, R. T. The Scrolls Newly Discovered in Palestine. S, 1949 .
pp. 41—46.
Orlinsky, H. M. "Studies in the St Mark's Isaiah Scroll.” I, JBL, 1950. pp.
14^-66; n, jnes, 1952. pp- 153-56; ni, jjs, 1951. pp- 151-54; iv.
JQR, 1953. PP- 329 - 40 ; V, IEJ, 1954. PP- 5 - 8 ; VI, HUCA, 1954. PP- 85-
92.
Rabin, C. The Zadokite Documents. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953.
_. f with J. L. Teicher. "Material Evidence of the Christian Origin of the
Dead Sea Scrolls.” JJS, 1952, pp- 128-32. _
“Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll and the Zadokite Documents. VT,
1955 . PP- 148-62.
Rabinowitz, I. “The Second and Third Columns of the Habakkuk Interpreta¬
tion-Scroll.” JBL, 1950, pp. 31 - 49 - ' ,
_. “The Existence of a Hitherto Unknown Interpretation of Psalm 107
among the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BA, 1951, pp. 50-52.
_. “The Authorship, Audience and Date of the do Vaux Fragment of
an Unknown Work," JBL, 1952, pp. 19-32.
“Sequence and Dates of the Extra-Biblical Dead Sea Scroll Texts
and ‘Damascus Fragments,’ ” VT, 1953, pp. 175-85-
“A Hebrew Letter of the Second Century from Beth Mashko.”
BASOR, October 1953, pp. 21-25.
"A Reconsideration of ‘Damascus’ and ‘390 Years' in the ‘Damascus'
(“Zadokite’) Fragments.” JBL, 1954. PP- n- 35 *
Rabinowitz, J. J. "Note sur la lettre de Bar Kokheba.” RB, 1954. pp. 191-
92 .
-. The Legal Document from Murabba'at.” B, 1954, pp. 198-206.
-. “Some Notes on an Aramaic Contract from the Dead Sea Region.”
BASOR, December 1954, pp. 15-16.
Ratzaby, Y. "Remarks Concerning the Distinction between Waw and Yodh
in the Habakkuk Scroll." JQR, 1950, pp. 155 - 57 -
Bibliography 431
Reed, William L. “The Qumran Caves Expedition of March, 195®-" BASOR,
October 1954, pp. 8-13.
Reicke, B. “Die Ta'&mire-Schriften und die Damaskus-Fragmente.” Studio
Theologico, 1948, pp. 4S~70.
-. Hondskriftema fran Qumrdn (eJler ‘Ain Feschcha) I-lIl (Symbolae
Biblicao Upsalienses XIV). Uppsala: Wretxnan, 195a.
-. “Traces of Gnosticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls?" NTS, 1954 . PP-
137 - 40 .
Reider, J. “The Dead Sea Scrolls.” JQR, 1950 , pp. 59~70-
Roberts, B. J. “The Jerusalem Scrolls." ZAW, 1950, pp. 224-45.
-. "Some Observations on the Damascus Document and the Dead Sea
Scrolls." BJRL, 1952. PP- 366-87-
-. "The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Testament Scriptures." BJRL,
1953 . PP- 75 - 96 .
Rost, L. “Die Sektenrolle.” ThLZ, 1950, cols. 341 - 44 -
-. "Bemerkungen zura neuen Habakkuktext" ThLZ, 1950, cols. 477-
482.
-. “Neue Handschriften vom Toten Meer.” ThLZ, 1952. coh- 117-18.
-. “Der von P£re de Vaux in der Acad^mie des Inscriptions et Belles
Lettres erstattete Bericht iiber Hirbet Qumr 3 m.” ThLZ, 1952, cols. 277-80.
-. “Der von Pd-re de Vaux iiber die neue Hohle und ihren Inhalt er¬
stattete Bericht.” ThLZ, 1952, cols. 317-20.
-. “Das Vcrhaltnis von ‘Damaskusschrift’ und 'Sektenroll.’ ThLZ,
1952, cols. 723-26.
-. “Der Tehrer der Einung” und der Lehrcr der Gerechtigkeit.
ThLZ, 1953, cols. 143-48.
Rowley, H. H. The Zadokite Fragments and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1952.
-. “The Covenanters of Damascus and the Dead Sea Scrolls.” BJRL,
1952, pp-in- 54 -
- “The Historical Background of the Dead Sea Scrolls." Expository
Times, 1952. pp- 378-84-
-. “The Internal Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls." ETL, 1952, pp. 257-
276, and ALBO, 1952.
Rubinstein, A. "Urban Halakhah and Camp Rules in the ‘Cairo Fragments of
a Damascene Covenant.’ ” Sefarad, 1952, pp. 283-96.
-. “Isaiah LVII 17—and the DSIa Variant.” VT, 1954, pp. 200-201.
- “Singularities in Consecutive-Tense Constructions in the Isaiah
Scroll.” VT, 1955, PP- 148-62.
Samuel, A. Y. "The Purchase of the Jerusalem Scrolls.” BA, 1949, pp. 26-31.
Schoeps, H. J. “Der Habakuk-Kommentar von ‘Ain Feshkha—ein Dokument
der Hasmonaischen Spatzeit,” ZAW, 1951, pp. 249-58.
-. “Handelt es sich wirklich um ebionitische Dokumente?" ZRG, 1951.
pp. 322-36.
-. “Das Gnostische Judentum in den Dead Sea Scrolls." ZRG, 1954 >
pp- 1 - 4 -
43Z The Dead Sea Scrolls
Schubart, W. “Zu dem Funde hebrSischer Handschrtften in Pa&stina." ThLZ,
Schubert K.“WeTexte a us der Sektiererhohle bd Jericho." Bonner Biblische
Bettrdee, 1950, pp. * 24 - 45 - , , TI . , „ ,
Die jiidischen und judenchristlichen Sekten im Licble dee Hand-
schriftenfundes von En Fefcha. Z eUechrift far kathoUsche Theoiogie, 195a.
PP
1-62.
“Bemerkungen zum Verst&ndnis einiger Termini in den Handschrif-
ten von En Feiha und im Damaikusdokument" ThLZ, 1952, pp. 329-36.
Scott, R. B. Y. "Acquisition of Dead Sea Scroll Fragments by McGill Uni¬
versity." BASOR, October 1954, p. 8. „ , .
Seeligmann, I. L. "The Epoch-making Discovery of Hebrew Scrolls in the
Judean Desert" BO, 1949, pp. 1-8.
Segal, M. H. T b'ywt il mgylwt hm'rh .* Eretz Israel, 1949-5°. PP- 39 " 44 -
-. 'Itwldwt kt hyhdr Tarbiz, 1950-51, pp- 13 &- 5 *-
_. -The Habakkuk Commentary and the Damascus Fragments.” JBL,
1951, ^ h ^ 3 pro ^ ulgation of jhe Authoritative Text of the Hebrew Bible."
JBL, 1953 . PP- 35 - 39 - w TW
Segert, S. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle a us dem Funde vom To ten Meer I. AO, 1953 >
EL . “Ein Alter Bericht iiber den Fund Hebraiscber Handschriften in
einer Hbhle." AO, 1953, pp. 263-69. _ „ , _
_. “Zur Habakuk-Rolle aus dem Funde vom Toten Meet IH. AO,
Seller! (X R. “Excavation of the ‘Manuscript’ Cave at Ain Fashkha." BASOR,
April 1949. PP- 5 “ 9 -
-. "Archaeological News from Palestine." BA, 1949, pp- 54 ~ 57 -
-. "Date of Cloth from the Scrolls Cave." BA, 1951, p. 29.
“Radiocarbon Dating of Cloth from the ‘Ain Feebkha Cave." BASOR,
October 1951, pp. 24-26.
Silberman, L. H. “The two 'Messiahs’ of the Manual of Discipline." VT,
* 955 . PP- 77 - 82 .
Skehan, P. W. “A Fragment of the 'Song of Moses’ (Deut. 32) from Qum-
rfim.” BASOR, December 1954, pp. 12-14.
Sonne, I. “A Hymn against Heretics in the Newly Discovered Scrolls and
Its Gnostic Background." HUCA, 1950-51, pp- 275-3 > 3 -
-. Final Verdict on the Scrolls? JBL, 1951, pp. 37 - 44 -
-. The Newly Discovered Bar Kolceba Letters," PAAJR, 1954. PP- 75 -
108.
-. “The X-Sign in the Isaiah Scroll." VT, 1954. pp- 9 °" 94 -
Starcky, J. “Un Contrat nabat 6 en sur papyrus." RB, 1954. pp-161-81.
Stauffer, E. "Zur FrQbdatierung dea Habakukmidrasch." ThLZ, 1951, cols.
667-74-
Stenzel, M. "Habakkuk II15-16." VT, 1953, pp. 97 - 99 -
Stern, S. M. “Notes on die New Manuscript Find.” JBL, 1950, pp. i 9 ~ 3 °-
Bibliography 433
Sukenik, E. L. mgylwt gmvzwt. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation, I, 1948; II,
» 950 -
-. nhmio nhmto 'my. Jerusalem, 1949.
— —. “The Scrolls: A reply to Dr. Zeitlin." Jewish Chronicle, November 17,
1950 . p- 13 -
-.'t ov hmgyiwt hgnwzwt. Jerusalem: Bialik Foundation and Hebrew
University, 1954.
Syzszman, S. “A Propos du Karalsme et des textes de la Mer Morte." VT,
J 953 . PP- 343 - 48 .
-. "Sur la Ceniza du Caire." VT, 1953, pp. 411-13.
Talmon, S. Tom hakkippurim in the Habakkuk-Scroll." B, 1951, pp. 549-
563 -
-.“Notes on the Habakkuk Scroll." VT, 1951, pp. 33 - 37 -
-. “The Sectarian yhd —A Biblical Noun." VT, 1953, pp. 133-40.
Teicher, J. L. "The Dead Sea Scrolls—Documents of the Jewish-Christian
Sect of Ebionites." JJS, 1951, pp. 67-99.
-. “The Damascus Fragments and the Origin of the Jewish Christian
Sect" JJS, 1951, pp. 115 - 43 -
-“Method in Hebrew Palaeography.” JJS, 1951, pp. 220-202.
-. “Jesus in the Habakkuk Scroll." JJS, 195a, pp. 53 - 55 *
-. The Teaching of the Pre-Pauline Church in the Dead Sea Scrolls."
JJS, 1953, pp- m-18; 1953. pp-1-13.93-103. 139 - 53 -
-. “Documents of the Bar-Kochba Period." JJS, 1953 , PP- 133 - 34 -
-. “Jesus’ Sayings in the Dead Sea Scrolls." JJS, 1954, p. 38.
-. “Are the Bar Kokhba Documents Cenuine?" JJS, 1954, pp. 39 ~ 40 -
-. The Habakkuk Scroll." JJS, 1954, pp. 47 ~ 59 -
-. The Christian Interpretation of the Sign X in the Isaiah Scroll."
VT, 1955 . PP- >89-98-
Torrey, C. C. “A Hebrew Fragment of Jubilees." JBL, 195 2 , pp. 3 fr" 4 *-
Toumay, R. P. R. “Les Andens manuscrits Wbreux r^cemment d 6 cou verts."
RB, 1949 - PP- 304-33.
Trever, J. C. The Discovery of the Scrolls." BA, 1948, pp. 46-57.
-. "Preliminary Observations on the Jerusalem Scrolls." BASOR, Oc¬
tober 1948, pp. 3-16.
-. “A Paleographic Study of the Jerusalem Scrolls." BASOR, February
1949 . PP- 8 - 33 -
-"Identification of the Aramaic Fourth Scroll from ‘Ain Feshkha."
BASOR, October 1949. PP- 8 -»o.
-. The ‘Suppressed’ Scroll of the Haf tarot." JQR, 1950. pp. 71-81.
-. “Some Comments on the Palaeography of the Dead Sea Scrolls." JJS.
1951 . PP- 195 - 99 - „ ,
-. “Studies in the Problem of Dating the Dead Sea Scrolls. Proceed¬
ings of the American Philosophical Society, 1953. PP- 184-93; Smith¬
sonian Report for 1953, pp. 435 ~ 35 -
Trinquet, J. “Les Liens ‘sadodtes’ de Wait de Damas, des manuscrits de la
Mer Morte et de I’Eccldriastique." VT, 1951, pp- 287-92.
434 The D ea d Sea Scrolls
Tur-Sinai, N. H. The Development of the Letters and the Date of the Dead
Sea Scrolls.” BIES, 1951, pp. 5 - 13 -
van der Ploeg, J. “De in 1947 in de Woestijn van Juda gevonden oude Hand-
schriften in het kader van gelijktijdige schriftelijke Documenten." Ex
Oriente Lux, 1949-50, PP- 4 *“ 7 *-
-. “Le Rouleau d'Habacuc de la grotte de ‘Ain Felha. BO, 1951,
pu. *-.1.
_, “De in 1947 bij de Dode Zee gevonden oude Handschriften." Ex
Oriente Lux, 1951-52, pp. 221-48.
-. “Quelques traductions du 'Manuel de disdpline' de la Mer Morte.”
BO, 1952, pp. 127-33. , , __
-. “LTmmortalit6 de Hiomme d’aprfes les tcxtes de la Mer Morte. VT,
1952, pp. 171-75.
Van't Land, F. A. W. and Van der Woude, A. S. De Habakuk-rol van 'Ain
Eaiha. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1954.
Vermes, G. “Nouvelles lumi£res sur la Bible et sux le Judaisme." CS, 1949.
pp. 224-33.
-. “La Secte juive de la Nouvelle Alliance. CS, 1950. PP- * 5 *-
_. “La Secte juive de la Nouvelle Alliance d’apr£s ses hymnes r6cem-
ment d^couverts.” CS, 1950, pp. 178-202.
-. “Le ‘Commentaire d’Habacuc' et le Nouveau Testament" CS, 1951,
PP- 337 - 49 .
“La Communautd de la Nouvelle Alliance d’aprAs ses Merits r6cem-
ment d&ouverts.” ETL, 1951, pp. 70-80, and ALBO, 1951.
-. Les Manuscrits du D6sert de Juda. Toumai: Descl6e, 1953.
“Oil en est la question des Manuscrits de la Mer Morte?" CS,
1953. PP- 3-i6.
-. "Le Cadre historique des Manuscrits de la Mer Morte.” RSR, 1953,
pp. 5-29, 203-30.
Vincent, A. “Oti en est la question des Manuscrits de la Mer Morte? Nouvel¬
les d&xmvertes.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses, 1952, pp. 258-64.
Wallenstein, M. Hymns from the Judean Scrolls. Manchester, Eng.: Man¬
chester University Press, 1950.
-. “Some Lexical Material in the Judean Scrolls.” VT, 1954, pp. 211-14.
Wechsler, T. "hgryzh hglwyh whgnyzh hgnwzh." Haolam, December 1,
1949 . PP- 1 5 ^- 57 -
-. The “Hidden Geniza’ Once More, or Mr. Trever versus Mr. Trever.
JQR. 1951. PP- 247-50.
-. The Origin of the So-Called Dead Sea Scrolls." JQR, 1952, pp.
121-39.
Weis, P. R. The Date of the Habakkuk Scroll. JQR, 1950, pp. 125-54.
Wemberg-Mpller, P. “Notes on the Manual of Discipline (DSD) I 18, II 9,
III 1-4, 9, VII 10-12, and XI 21-22.” VT, 1953, pp. 195-202.
Wieder, N. The Habakkuk Scroll and the Targum.” JJS, 1953, pp. 14-18.
-. “The ‘Law-Interpreter’ of the Sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The
Second Moses.” JJS, 1953, pp. 15 &- 75 -
Bibliography 435
Wright, G. E. “The Cave Excavated; Fragments of the Book of Daniel Found;
The Extent of the Total Discovery; Photographs of the Jerusalem
Scrolls.’’ BA, 1949, pp. 34-36.
-. "Additional Comments on the Scroll Cave." BA, 1949, pp. 64-65.
-. “Some Radio-carbon Dates." BA, 1951, pp. 3 if.
- "More Cave Manuscripts." BA, 1952, 44f.
Yadin, Y. “A Note on DSD 1V:20.” JBL, 1955, pp. 40-43.
Yalon, H. "gdmwtn wh&wbwtn SI hmgylwt hgnwzwt.” Hasrrpheh, March 25
and April 13, 1949.
- "USwn hmgylwt hgnwzwt Sinai, 1950, pp. 460-94.
Yeivin, S. “Die Date and Attribution of the Leviticus Fragments from the
Cache in the Judaean Desert.” BASOR, April 1950, pp. 28-30.
Zcitlin, S. “Die Hoax of the 'Slavonic Joseph.’" JQR, 1948, pp. 171-81.
-. “ ‘A Commentary on the Book of Habakkuk’ Important Discovery or
Hoax?" JQR, 1949, pp. 235-47-
-. “Scholarship and the Hoax of the Recent Discoveries.” JQR, 1949.
PP- 337 - 63 -
-. “The Alleged Antiquity of the Scrolls." JQR, 1949, pp. 57-78.
-. "The Mystery of the Hebrew Scrolls.” Crozer Quarterly, 1950, pp.
35—42.
-. “Where Is the Scroll of the Haftarot?" JQR, 1950, pp. 291-96.
-. “When Were the Hebrew Scrolls ‘Discovered,’ in 1947 or in 1907?"
JQR, 1950- pp- 373 - 78 .
-. “The Hebrew Scrolls: Once More and Finally.” JQR, 1950, pp. 1-58.
-. “The Hebrew Scrolls: A Challenge to Scholarship." JQR, 1951, pp.
* 51 - 75 -
-. "The Hebrew Scrolls and the Status of Biblical Scholarship." JQR,
1951 , PP- 133 - 9 *-
-. The Zadokite Fragments. (JQR Monograph Series, No. 1), Phila¬
delphia: Dropsie College, 1952.
-. “Bar Kokba and Bar Kozeba.’’ JQR, 1952, pp. 77-82.
-. “The Hebron Pogrom and the Hebrew Scrolls.” JQR, 1952, pp.
140-5*-
-. “The Fiction of the Recent Discoveries Near the Dead Sea." JQR,
1953 . PP- 85-115-
-. “The Mishna in Yadaim IV.8, and “The Sectarians.’" JQR, 1953 .
pp. 297-300.
-. “The Antiquity of the Hebrew Scrolls and the Piltdown Hoax: A
Parallel." JQR, 1954, pp. 1-29.
-. “The Essenes and Messianic Expectations.” JQR, 1954, PP- 83-119.
-. “A Note on the Fiction of the 'Bar Kokba’ Letter.” JQR, 1954, pp.
174-80.
The following appeared after this book went to press:
Barth 61 emy, D., and Milik, J. T., Qumran Cave I (Discoveries in the Judaean
Desert I). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.
-*• C :
CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIBRARY
NEW DELHI
- Ig sue _
Catalogue No. C<,1.4s24/ B ur-502f,
Author— burrows, i.iiitr.
Title— Je “ d . s eu sci-olls, ..ith
Eorrower No. D,t e ofI SSU c D « co fR ctum
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11